https://cadredb.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=BGreatley-Hirsch 2026-04-15T22:24:25Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.37.1 https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Travels_of_the_Three_English_Brothers,_The&diff=1224 2023-06-26T20:18:31Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== Year (composition) ==<br /> [[File:Travailesofthree00dayj_0009.jpg|alt=Title page of 1607 Quarto.|thumb|Title page of the 1607 Quarto. Barton Collection, Boston Public Library (G.3970.25). [https://archive.org/details/travailesofthree00dayj/page/n7/mode/2up Internet Archive]]] Written, performed and published in 1607 (Parr 7-9). <br /> <br /> == Year (first printed) ==<br /> 1607 (''STC'' 6417)<br /> <br /> == Reprints (until 1700) ==<br /> A second issue the same year (see below).<br /> <br /> == Authors (title-page ascription, including reprints) ==<br /> John Day, William Rowley and George Wilkins (not on title page but in a dedicatory epistle found in some copies of the text; see below). <br /> <br /> == Authors proposed (attribution scholarship) ==<br /> N/A<br /> <br /> == Genre ==<br /> History (prologue); travel play (Parr); adventure play (Wiggins 5: 381)<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> <br /> * Anthony Nixon, ''The Three English Brothers'' (1607); probably read in manuscript before publication (Parr 7-8).<br /> * William Parry, ''A New and Large Discourse of the Travels of Sir Anthony Sherley, Knight ... to the Persian Empire'' (1601) (Parr 84n).<br /> <br /> == Auspices ==<br /> The title page reads, “''As it is now play’d by her Maiesties Servants'',” referring to Queen Anne’s Men. The Stationer’s Register describes it as “played at the Curten,” while an allusion in ''The Knight of the Burning Pestle'' refers to it as a Red Bull play (Jeffs xvii). The company played at both playhouses in 1607 (Parr 55n).<br /> <br /> == External Documentary Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Payments ===<br /> N/A<br /> <br /> === Stationers' Register ===<br /> The [https://stationersregister.online/entry/SRO5323 Stationer’s Register entry] for the quarto (29 June, 1607) does not name the authors. <br /> <br /> === Title-page ascription(s) ===<br /> [[File:Travailes-folg-stc6417-dedication.jpg|alt=Dedicatory epistle in the Folger Shakespeare Library copy of the 1607 Quarto.|thumb|Dedicatory epistle in the Folger Shakespeare Library copy of the 1607. Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C. (STC 6417). Kindly photographed by Rachel White. [https://catalog.folger.edu/record/163366 Folger Shakespeare Library]]] A second issue of the 1607 quarto adds an inserted page containing a dedicatory epistle signed by the authors, “Iohn Day. William Rowley. George Wilkins.” According to W.W. Greg, “the leaf appears to have been added after most of the copies were sold” and appears in the copies held by the British Library, the Dyce Collection (National Art Gallery, London), and the Folger Shakespeare Library (Greg, Bibliography, 1: 381).<br /> <br /> In the epistle, the authors refer to themselves in the plural as “we” and to “our worthlesse Pennes.” <br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (external) ===<br /> ''Travels'' was written within the brief period of time (1606-8) in which George Wilkins attempted to make a living as a writer (Prior 137). Its subject matter accords with the “special interest in Mediterranean histories” that is apparent in all his work (Honigmann 196). <br /> <br /> John Day spent much of his career writing collaborative plays, and this three-way partnership is thus no surprise (see Jeffs ix-xv). There is no other evidence of him writing with Rowley, but some scholars have argued that he had already collaborated with Wilkins on ''Law Tricks'' (Jeffs xv).<br /> <br /> William Rowley’s name in the quarto text of ''Travels'' is the earliest historical record of his existence. An actor-playwright, it is possible, but not certain, that he was a player in Queen Anne’s Men when they performed ''Travels''. The presence of a scene involving the famous clown Kempe is interesting, given Rowley’s specialization in clown acting (see Nicol, ''Middleton and Rowley'' 71-2). There are no further biographical connections between him and Day or Wilkins, but Wilkins’ prose work '''Three Miseries of Barbary'' is a source for a character’s name in Rowley’s ''The Thracian Wonder'' (Nicol, “Name”). <br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (external) ===<br /> See ‘Auspices’ above.<br /> <br /> The title page announces, “''As it is now play’d by her Maiesties Servants''”. Ernst Honigmann notes that it was rare for a play to be printed while it was still being performed onstage (188); the phrase “''now play'd''” is without parallel for “a new play between 1590 and 1616, the regular form being always in the past” (179). He finds it significant that the only exception is another Wilkins play, ''The Miseries of Enforced Marriage'', performed by the King’s Men in the same year that it was published. Honigmann thus proposes that Wilkins had a habit of taking his plays to the press while they were still being performed, and without permission from the players (180). <br /> <br /> === Allusions ===<br /> A joke in ''The Knight of the Burning Pestle'' alludes to Travels but makes no reference to its authorship (Jeffs xvii). <br /> <br /> === Print and MS attributions ===<br /> None noted.<br /> <br /> == Internal Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Explanation of terms ===<br /> In the summaries below, it should be noted that almost all of the scholars cited (with the exception of Bullen and Golding) are analyzing ''Travels'' in order to determine whether George Wilkins contributed to Shakespeare’s ''Pericles''. “''Pericles'' 1-2” refers to the first two acts of that play, which are thought to contain most of Wilkins’ work; “''Pericles'' 3-5” refers to the last three acts, which are thought to be primarily written by Shakespeare. “''Travels'' W” refers to the scenes of the play that the scholars believe to be mostly by Wilkins; “''Travels'' D&amp;R” refers to the other scenes in the play, assumed to be by Day and/or Rowley (see ‘Critical Debate,’ below, for an explanation of how these sections were determined). Finally, ''Miseries'' refers to ''The Miseries of Enforced Marriage'', the only known solo play by Wilkins. <br /> <br /> === Palaeographical evidence ===<br /> N/A<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (internal) ===<br /> None.<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (internal) ===<br /> None.<br /> <br /> === Metrical evidence ===<br /> The earliest scholars of the play attributed authorship of individual scenes based on vague assessments of meter. According to A.H. Bullen, F.G. Fleay based his division of the play on Rowley’s “peculiar system of blank verse” and on Wilkins’ “short lines, especially 4-feet lines” (Bullen 19n1). Bullen himself referred to Rowley’s “grating metrical irregularities” in scene 7 (20). Robert Boyle similarly thought Rowley had a distinctively “uneven metre” but found no obvious metrical differences between Wilkins and Day (327).<br /> <br /> In ''Defining Shakespeare'' (2003), MacDonald P. Jackson attempted a more rigorous analysis of Wilkins’ meter, using Ants Oras’ technique of comparing the pause patterns in Wilkins’ verse with that of Shakespeare (for Jackson’s description of Oras’s method, see 64-66, and for his own adaptation of it, see 86-7). Using the raw figures to create a “Pearson product moment correlation,” Jackson produced “a mathematical measure” of the relative differences. Ranking Shakespeare’s and Wilkins’ plays in terms of closeness to ''Pericles'' 3-5, he found ''Travels'' W to be 23rd out of 42 (89). Ranking them in terms of closeness to ''Pericles'' 1-2, he found ''Travels'' W at 15 out of 42. Wilkins’ section of ''Travels'' is thus somewhat closer to his section of ''Pericles'' than to Shakespeare’s; Jackson attributed the relatively undramatic difference (which contrasts with a more extreme result for Wilkins’ ''Miseries of Enforced Marriage'') to ''Travels'' being a collaboration, and specifically to the influence of Day (88-90). <br /> <br /> Using the same data, Jackson used a “chi-square statistic” to estimate “the probability that the two sets of figures could have been randomly drawn from the same parent population” (91). Comparing the Wilkins plays with six Shakespeare plays, he found ''Travels'' W and ''Miseries'' to be much less similar to Pericles 3-5 than the Shakespeare plays. However, although he didn’t say this, the data for his comparison of the plays with ''Pericles'' 1-2 shows ''Travels'' W to be very unlike it, whereas ''Miseries'' is very similar (93).<br /> <br /> ==Evidence of rhymes==<br /> H. Dugdale Sykes was the first to note, in 1919, that Wilkins appears to have constantly used the same set of rhymes, which may indicate his presence (156-8). <br /> <br /> In “Rhymes in ''Pericles''” (1969), David J. Lake explored Wilkins’ rhyming more systematically. He noted the assonantal nature of some of the rhymes in ''Pericles'' (such as sung/come in the first two lines), which are rare in Shakespeare and argued that they cannot be explained as deliberate archaisms because numerous examples are found in ''Travels'' and ''The Miseries of Enforced Marriage'' (139-40). Finding such rhymes also to be rare in Day and infrequent in Rowley, Lake determined Wilkins to be the culprit, and noted that all but one of the examples in Travels fall within the scenes traditionally associated with Wilkins (141-2).<br /> <br /> Lake also explored more thoroughly Sykes’s reference to Wilkins’ tendency to “mingle” rhyming and blank verse. He noted that Wilkins tended to include rhymes in the middle of a blank verse or even prose speech, rather than putting them at the end, and that he also often put unrhyming lines in the middle of a rhymed speech (142; Lake called the latter lines ‘rifts’). Lake also noted ‘rafts’ (rhymed sections preceded and followed by blank verse), finding 25 in the Wilkins scenes; there were only 7 elsewhere, all of which he attributed to Rowley, who was “as careless in this matter as Wilkins” (142).<br /> <br /> In ''Defining Shakespeare'' (2003), Jackson cited Lake’s study of rhymes approvingly, then presented his own study of whether rhymes in ''Miseries'' are repeated in other plays, including ''Travels'' W (his methodology is explained at 97-102). He came up with a table ranking the percentages of rhymes that the plays share with ''Miseries''. ''Pericles'' 1-2 comes first with 40% and ''Travels'' W is next with 26.7%. After that comes ''Measure for Measure'', with 23.9%. Jackson thus concluded that the first two plays are much more ‘Wilkinsian’ in their rhymes (102). <br /> <br /> In two ''Notes and Queries'' articles in the 2010s, John Klause claimed that there are logical flaws in Jackson’s counting of rhymes and argued that the distinctions among the plays are not as clear as he had made them look (“Rhyme”, “Controversy”). Jackson rejected Klause’s arguments (“Reasoning”, “Rhymes”). ''Travels'' is mentioned only briefly in this debate and nothing new is said about it. <br /> <br /> === Chronological evidence ===<br /> N/A<br /> <br /> === Vocabulary ===<br /> In 1969, David J. Lake argued that Wilkins’ work contains an unusual preponderance of the of the words ''yon'' (and related words) and ''sin'', with a frequency much higher than that in Shakespeare, Day or Rowley. In ''Travels'', he noted that ''yon'' and related words appear only in the scenes attributed to Wilkins (“Wilkins” 289-90). He also noted that every instance of ''sin'' in the Wilkins scenes is “uncalled for by the context,” which he regarded as evidence for it being “a favourite word” in contrast to the unremarkable instances in the works for Rowley and Day (“Wilkins” 291).<br /> <br /> === Oaths and interjections ===<br /> None noted.<br /> <br /> === Linguistic evidence ===<br /> H. Dugdale Sykes’s ''Sidelights on Shakespeare'' (1929) paid close attention to Wilkins’ quirky grammatical constructions, including some examples from ''Travels'' (152, 154-55, 157, 158, 162-3, 170-71, 172, 187, 188n1, 195). He concluded that Wilkins's writing is marked by three oddities:<br /> * “Frequent omission of the relative pronoun in the nominative case” (150), although he notes only one example in ''Travels'' (152)<br /> * Verbal antitheses, which “run riot” through his share of ''Travels'' (152)<br /> * “Repeating a word within the line,” which he does “two or three times” in ''Travels'' (155). <br /> <br /> In 1990, MacDonald P. Jackson elaborated on a point briefly made by E.A.J. Honigmann (194) about Wilkins’ unusual uses of the word ''which''. He defined three especially important unusual forms:<br /> * ''which'' meaning ‘and this’ and qualifying a noun that immediately follows<br /> * ''which'' preceded by the definite article<br /> * ''which'' beginning a speech that is not a question (“''Pericles''” 193)<br /> <br /> In ''Travels'', he found that “the three-fifths of the play that Lake follows Sykes in ascribing to Wilkins” contains an amount “well below that for acts I and II of ''Pericles'', but much closer to theirs than is the work of other dramatists” while the parts allocated to Day and Rowley contain just one (196). The argument is strengthened by his inclusion of other plays by Day and Rowley in the tests. Jackson reiterates these findings in ''Defining Shakespeare'' (128). <br /> <br /> In a 1993 article, Jackson proposed that the frequent presence of infinitive forms of verbs can be an indicator of Wilkins. The “rate of infinitives per 1000 words” compared to Shakespeare and to selected Day and Rowley plays, turned out to be “anomalously high” in ''Pericles'' 1-2, and in Wilkins’ other plays (“Authorship” 198). In regard to ''Travels'', Jackson showed that the rate in the purported Wilkins section was higher than that in the share apportioned to Day and Rowley (199). He also tested the general frequency of the word ''to'' in selected plays and found that “Wilkins is the most prominent presence” among the plays with the highest frequencies, including his section of ''Travels'', although he acknowledged that Heywood and Massinger scored highly too (200). Overall, Jackson concludes that this is further supporting evidence for Wilkins.<br /> <br /> In ''Defining Shakespeare'' (2003), Jackson enhanced this study of infinitives. Comparing the rate of infinitives in the W section of ''Travels'' compared to the D&amp;R section, he finds it at 17.5/1000 words compared to 9.7, and considers the probability of this being chance as “less than a thousand” (120-22n67). And returning to the amount of the word to, he found both of two samples from ''Travels'' W appearing in the top 10 of plays (122-23). <br /> <br /> ''Defining Shakespeare'' includes the results of many studies by Jackson of ''Pericles'' that support Wilkins’ authorship of scenes attributed to him in ''Travels'':<br /> * He studied Wilkins’ habit of treating “combinations of personal pronouns followed by are or have” as monosyllabic rather than disyllabic; he found after a “quick count” that the ratio in ''Travels'' W is congruent with ''Pericles'' 1-2 (95). <br /> * In an expansive study of function words, he counted occurrences of the words ''a'', ''and'', ''but'', ''by'', ''for'', ''from'', ''in it'', ''of'', ''that'', ''the'', ''to'', and with using “eighty-six samples from plays by known dramatists” collected for his 1979 study of Middleton’s collaborations (113). He supplemented these with “a third and fourth sample from” ''Miseries'', “two samples from Wilkins’ share of” ''Travels'', “one sample from the portion of ''The Travels'' generally attributed to Wilkins’ collaborators” and “one sample from that portion of William Rowley’s ''A Woman Never Vexed'' which David Lake tentatively assigned to Wilkins, namely the last two acts” (115; for an explanation of the situation with this play, see ‘Critical Commentary’ below). Each sample consisted of “one thousand consecutive instances of the thirteen selected function words” except for ''Travels'' D&amp;R, where “there was not quite enough text to provide a sample of the standard size” (115). In the end, Jackson had created 112 samples, including seven from Wilkins and nine from Shakespeare. He then calculated the “chi-square fit” of each sample with each of the two sections of ''Pericles'' to assess their similarities (116). When they were compared with ''Pericles' 3-5, ''Travels'' D&amp;R was number 7 out of 112 (Jackson didn’t say where the Wilkins samples appeared). When compared with ''Pericles'' 1-2, ''Miseries'' came first in terms of closeness, and the two samples of ''Travels'' W came third and fifth respectively, indicating a strong connection between these texts (no Shakespeare plays appear in the top 10); ''Travels'' D&amp;R is at #59, suggesting it to be very different (Table 14, p. 117). <br /> * He studied the ratio of ''most'' to ''unto'', another indicator of Wilkins writing Pericles 1-2, as Wilkins tended to use ''unto'' more often than ''most''; this is true of ''Travels'' W too (137). Jackson studied the ratio in three plays each by Day and Rowley and found Rowley using most rather more than Day did; although the numbers are small, he claimed that “such as they are, they reflect accurately the slight difference between Day’s and Rowley’s practices.” <br /> * Considering the linguistic markers such as those studied by Cyrus Hoy, David Lake and himself in their studies of the Fletcher and Middleton canons, Jackson found the Wilkins canon unconducive to such studies, given its small number of texts (139). However, discussing the use of ''ye'' (as opposed to ''you''), he noted that in their non-collaborative plays, “neither Day nor Wilkins made very much use of ''ye'', whereas Rowley, whose plays vary in his treatment of the pronoun, used it 34 times in ''A Shoemaker a Gentleman'' (1608), the Rowley play that is easily the nearest to ''Travels'' in its date of composition” and he thus noted that “it appears significant that occurrences of ''ye'' cluster within scenes” attributed to Rowley; 16 of the 25 examples occur there, even though he only wrote about quarter of the play (139). <br /> * He studied has/hath and does/doth ratios, finding ''Travels'' W to reflect Wilkins’ greater tendency toward ''hath'' and ''doth'' (140). He also found commonalities between ''Travels'' W and the other Wilkins-related texts in the rareness of contractions using ''th’'' and the use of ''’t'', ''h’as'' and ''him’s'' (141). <br /> <br /> === Stage directions ===<br /> None noted.<br /> <br /> === Verbal parallels ===<br /> Although he was not systematic in proving it, Robert Boyle was the first to argue that Wilkins was a habitual repeater of phrases and that these “Wilkinsisms” can help to identify him. He provided a list of parallel passages between ''Pericles'', ''Travels'', and ''Miseries'' (327-9). <br /> <br /> S.R. Golding was one of the few scholars to be interested in Day’s contribution; he proposed some verbal parallels with his other plays (418-20). <br /> <br /> In ''Defining Shakespeare'', Jackson notes some parallel passages in which the same distinctive uses of words appear in both ''Pericles'' and ''Travels'' (145-7).<br /> <br /> === Image clusters ===<br /> None noted.<br /> <br /> == Critical Debate ==<br /> There is no doubt as to the identities of the authors of Travels, but there has been debate and discussion over how they divided their work. Overall, attribution studies appear at first glance to have arrived at a consensus, but the contributions of Day and Rowley are in fact less clear than those of Wilkins. This is because most studies have been undertaken with a view toward determining Wilkins’ share in ''Pericles''; they thus treat ''Travels'' as a side-project and are less interested in distinguishing Day and Rowley from one another. <br /> <br /> The overall story of approaches to ''Travels'' is as follows. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, several scholars attempted to ascertain who wrote which scene, ranging from brief and impressionistic comments to a very detailed study by H. Dugdale Sykes conducted as part of his study of ''Pericles''. A vague consensus emerged, at least about Wilkins’ contributions. In the 1960s, David J. Lake, focusing on ''Pericles'', brought a more rigorous methodology, using various approaches to linguistic and rhyming eccentricities. His assumptions about ''Travels'' were based on the apparent existing consensus. MacDonald P. Jackson conducted further studies as part of his work on ''Pericles'' in the 1990s and 2000s. While the case for Wilkins’ authorship of Pericles is now extremely clear and convincing, ''Travels'' still awaits a modern scholar who will pay attention to it for its own sake and look more closely at the other authors. <br /> <br /> It is helpful here to summarize the approximate consensus that emerged from the earliest studies of the play. What follows is a scene-by-scene breakdown with comments on the claims for authorship made in the earliest studies. I have highlighted the proposed authors to enable a quick visual impression of which scenes produced consistent attributions and which did not. The sources are as follows:<br /> * F.G. Fleay studied the authorship of ''Travels'' in the 1870s, presumably during the creation of his 1874 study of ''Pericles''. A.H. Bullen (see below) quoted Fleay’s conclusions, which had partially influenced his own (19-20). I have not identified a published source for these quotations; perhaps Bullen was quoting a private letter. Fleay would later publish a slightly different breakdown of the scenes in 1891 (see below), but I have included both versions as the first was an influence on Bullen and Boyle.<br /> * A.H. Bullen’s brief thoughts in his edition of ''The Works of John Day'' (1881) are a vague, incomplete, and impressionistic survey, but deserve note as the first published study. Bullen was responding to the ideas of Fleay (see above). <br /> * Robert Boyle’s study of Wilkins and ''Pericles'' (1885) was also responding to Fleay as quoted by Bullen (see above). <br /> * F.G. Fleay finally published his breakdown of the play’s authorship in his ''Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama'' (1891). It referred to metrical analysis but offered no data. It contained two differences from what he had communicated to Bullen in the 1870s (see above): Fleay appears to have changed his mind about the authorship of scenes 12 and 13. <br /> * H. Dugdayle Sykes, in ''Sidelights in Shakespeare'' (1919), studied a variety of evidence including verbal parallels.<br /> * S.R. Golding’s study of “Day and Wilkins as Collaborators” (1926) is also centered on verbal parallels. <br /> * Dewar M. Robb’s study of the Rowley canon (1950) lacks supporting evidence for its conclusions, but is worth noting as a rare example of a study by a Rowley scholar. <br /> <br /> In what follows, I have also attempted to clarify the confusing matter of scene divisions. Q is not divided into scenes; Parr’s edition is the first to do so. Unless there is evidence otherwise, I assume the scholars’ scene divisions to be the same as Parr’s (which seem to me logical); Boyle (326), Sykes (145n1) and Robb (135), however, divide the play according to a slightly different model (to my mind, incorrectly). Line references are to Parr.<br /> <br /> * '''Prologue.''' Few scholars have addressed the authorship of the Prologue. Fleay and Golding attributed it to '''Rowley'''; no other study directly attributes an author to it.<br /> * '''Scene 1.''' Anthony and Robert Sherley impress the Sophy of Persia and incur the jealousy of Halibeck and Calimath. Bullen thought the author was Rowley, being typically at “too high a key”, lacking “naturalness and freedom” and having a style “forced without being dignified” (20). Fleay, Boyle and Golding also attributed it to '''Rowley'''.<br /> * '''Scene 2.''' Anthony and Robert help the Sophy defeat the Turks; the Sophy sends Anthony and Halibeck to forge an alliance with the Christian world against them. Bullen thought it Wilkins at first, but Rowley from 89 onward, especially the “savagely eloquent” 128-33 (20). However, Fleay, Boyle, Sykes and Golding attributed the entire scene to '''Wilkins'''. <br /> * '''Scene 3.''' The Sophy's Niece falls in love with Robert; in this comic scene, the Niece and her maid frequently speak in prose. Bullen saw Day in the “playful naughtiness” of the conversation between the Sophy’s Niece and Dalibra (19). Fleay, Boyle and Golding also attributed it to '''Day'''. <br /> * '''Scene 4.''' A short scene (49 lines), beginning with a speech by the Chorus; Anthony arrives in Russia but is arrested when Halibeck spreads rumours of his low birth. Fleay cautiously attributed it to '''Day'''. Boyle thought it was '''Day or Rowley'''. But Sykes and Golding attributed it to '''Wilkins'''.<br /> * '''Scene 5.''' The Chorus explains how Anthony was released after the rumour was quashed; he is welcomed to Rome. Fleay cautiously attributed it to '''Day'''. Boyle was certain only that it wasn’t Wilkins. But Sykes and Golding attributed it to '''Wilkins'''.<br /> * '''Scene 6.''' The Chorus describes Thomas's voyage to see his brothers; Thomas lands on a Greek island and is captured by Turks. Fleay, Boyle, Sykes and Golding attributed it to '''Wilkins'''. Boyle proposed that the Chorus could be Rowley, as its geographical confusions would not have been made by Day or Wilkins (328); however, the Chorus is in fact following the source material (see Parr, n. to 6.16).<br /> * '''Scene 7.''' Robert captures Turkish prisoners in battle; one of them is a Christian who gives him a message from Thomas, imprisoned in Constantinople. Fleay, Boyle and Golding attributed this scene to '''Rowley'''. <br /> * '''Scene 8.''' The Great Turk refuses Robert's offer of a prisoner swap, after realizing Thomas’s importance. Fleay, Boyle, Golding and Sykes attributed it to '''Wilkins'''.<br /> * '''Scene 9.''' Anthony is in Venice and needs to repay a debt to Zariph the Jew; he also watches the English actor Will Kemp engage in comic repartee with commedia dell'arte actors; this section is mostly prose. Bullen saw '''Rowley’s''' “grossness” in the Kemp scene, but also '''Day''' in the “quickness and pertness of the sallies” (19). He could not accept that Day created Zariph the Jew (19n1), attributing him to Rowley because he is “very life-like” but drawn with a “few rough strokes” rather than as a “finished sketch” (19-20). However, Fleay, Boyle and Golding attributed the entire scene to '''Day''' (note that Boyle treats 9 and 10 as one scene, which he calls “9”).<br /> * '''Scene 10.''' Halibeck has intercepted money sent by the Sophy to Anthony and plots with Zariph to deny it to him; Anthony is then arrested by Zariph at a banquet. Fleay and Golding attributed it to '''Rowley'''. Boyle attributed it to '''Day''' (note that Boyle treats 9 and 10 as one scene, which he calls “9”). <br /> * '''Scene 11.''' The Sophy discovers that his Niece loves Robert and fakes his execution before allowing them to marry. Bullen attributed to Day the Niece’s “spirited” avowal of love for Robert and defiance of his accusers, claiming that his heroines have a “charming frankness of manner” and “know how to express their likes and dislikes gracefully and vigorously” (19). Fleay also attributed it to '''Day'''. However, Boyle and Sykes attributed it to '''Wilkins''' (note that they call this scene “10”; Boyle also states incorrectly that Fleay attributed it to Rowley). Golding, unusually, considers it to be by both '''Day and Wilkins''' in collaboration. <br /> * '''Scene 12.''' Thomas is tortured by the Great Turk but is saved when an English agent requests his freedom. Bullen attributed it to '''Day''', as did Fleay in his 1870s study; however, by 1891, Fleay had attributed it to '''Wilkins'''. Some critics divide the scene in two, viz:<br /> ** '''12.1-57.''' Boyle called this section “scene 11” and regarded it as '''Day''', but thought the Jailer’s opening prose speech (1-16) might be '''Wilkins'''. Golding attributed it to '''Day'''.<br /> ** '''12.58-155'''. Boyle, Sykes and Golding attributed this to '''Wilkins''' (note that Boyle and Sykes called this section “scene 12”). <br /> * '''Scene 13.''' Robert has a child with the Niece and discusses its baptism with a Hermit; Halibeck tells the Sophy that Anthony's mission was a failure but Robert proves Halibeck the cause and has him executed; the Sophy permits Robert to baptize his child and build a church in Persia. Bullen attributed it to '''Wilkins''', as it is “carefully and equably written” (20). However, most scholars have considered this scene to have divided authorship, ''viz'':<br /> ** '''13.1-175.''' Fleay attributed this to '''Day''' in his 1870s study. However, in his 1891 publication he attributed it to '''Wilkins''', as did Boyle, Sykes (implicitly) and Golding.<br /> ** '''13.176-202'''. In the last few lines of the scene, the Sophy agrees to let Robert build a church and a Christian school in Persia. Fleay, Boyle and Golding attributed these lines to '''Rowley'''. <br /> * '''Epilogue.''' The Chorus reports on the fates of the other two brothers. Fleay in the 1870s and Bullen attributed it to '''Rowley''' (20), but no other study directly attributes an author to it.<br /> <br /> It will be seen from this list that there is a fairly strong consensus, but not for all scenes. The major disagreements are over scenes 4 and 5, 10, and 11, and they have not been fully addressed in subsequent scholarship. Most studies have not directly addressed the authorship of the prologue or epilogue. <br /> <br /> Overall, Sykes was the most influential upon subsequent scholarship. F.D. Hoeniger cited him approvingly in the 1963 Arden ''Pericles'' (lx-xi); so too did Brian Vickers in his detailed survey of the ''Pericles'' studies (297-306), although he cautioned that Sykes’ methodology was not always systematic or entirely accurate (297, 302).<br /> <br /> Sykes’ influence became very important when David J. Lake returned to ''Travels'' for a series of articles investigating ''Pericles''. Lake followed Sykes’ conclusions about Wilkins’ presence in that play (142) and labelled his attributed scenes “''Travels'' W,” treating them as a consistent text against which theories could be tested. Jackson used the same approach in his studies of ''Pericles'' in the 1990s and 2000s, sometimes also combining together the rest of the scenes as “Travels D&amp;R.” <br /> <br /> More work needs to be done on Day and Rowley’s contributions. But this does not diminish the very compelling work that scholars have done on Wilkins. Jackson summarises by saying that if one simply counts instances of three pieces of evidence mentioned above: the uses of ‘which’, the elisions of the relative pronoun, and the assonantal near-rhymes, one can see an enormous difference between ''Travels'' W, ''Miseries'' and ''Pericles'' 1-2 on the one hand, and ''Travels'' D&amp;R and ''Pericles'' 3-5 on the other: the former group contains an enormously higher number of these features than the other group (''Defining'' 160-1). Overall, Jackson concludes that all the evidence combines “to form a style that appears in ''Pericles'' 1-2, ''The Miseries of Enforced Marriage'', Wilkins’s share of ''The Travels of the Three English Brothers'', and nowhere else in English Renaissance drama” (169).<br /> <br /> == Critical Commentary ==<br /> The relative lack of interest in Rowley has resulted in some confusion that might complicate the findings of these studies. In “The ‘Pericles’ Candidates,” Lake studied Rowley’s ''A New Wonder, a Woman Never Vexed'', a play often noted to have a marked change of style in its last two acts. He observed that the style seemed familiar: whoever wrote those two acts could also have written the ‘Wilkins’ section of ''Travels''. Lake resolved this problem by proposing that Wilkins did indeed write Acts 4 and 5 of ''New Wonder'' (140-1). However, in ''Defining Shakespeare'', Jackson was inconsistent in his treatment of ''New Wonder'': in a footnote, he refused to go so far as to accept it into the Wilkins canon (as Acts 4-5 contain some of his characteristics but not others), but he admitted that the possibility “needs further investigation” (115n59). Yet in his study of function words, he found ''New Wonder'' 4-5 ranked 8th out of 112 plays in terms of closeness to ''Pericles'' 1-2, leading him to suggest that Lake may have been correct about its authorship (116). However, later in the same book, he treats the play unproblematically as Rowley’s (137). It seems clear that any study of Wilkins needs to look more closely at ''A New Wonder'', in case it may represent a second example of a collaboration between Rowley and Wilkins. <br /> <br /> == Further Thoughts ==<br /> One intriguing parallel has gone overlooked. The epistle by the authors includes the line “to all well-willers to those worthy subjects of our worthless pens.” This is echoed in the dedicatory epistle to Middleton and Rowley’s ''A Fair Quarrel'' (1616), signed by Rowley, which says of the dedicatee, “''his poor well-willer wishes his best wishes''” (3); there is also a similarity with the epistle to the reader in Middleton and Rowley’s ''The World Tossed at Tennis'' (1620), again written by Rowley, which begins “''To the well-wishing, well-reading understander''.” If Rowley wrote the epistle to ''Travels'', this might suggest that he had a more important role in its writing and publication than has been considered. <br /> <br /> Also of note is that the scholarly consensus gives Rowley the beginning and end of the play, something often seen in his later collaborations with Middleton (Mooney; Nicol, ''Middleton and Rowley'' 26-32). <br /> <br /> == Works Cited ==<br /> Boyle, Robert. “On Wilkins’ Share in the Play Called Shakspere’s ''Pericles''.” ''New Shakspere Society’s Transactions'' 8, 1886, pp. 323–40. <br /> <br /> Bullen, A. H., editor. ''The Works of John Day, Now First Collected, with an Introduction and Notes''. Chiswick Press, 1881. <br /> <br /> Fleay, F.G. “On the Play of ''Pericles''.” ''New Shakspere Society’s Transactions'', vol. 1, 1874, pp. 195–209.<br /> <br /> ———. ''A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama''. Reeves and Turner, 1891.<br /> <br /> Golding, S. R. “Day and Wilkins as Collaborators.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 150, no. 24, 1926, pp. 417–21 and vol. 150, no. 25, 1926, pp. 436–38.<br /> <br /> Hoeniger, F. D., editor. ''Pericles''. Methuen, 1963.<br /> <br /> Honigmann, E. A. J. ''The Stability of Shakespeare’s Text''. Edward Arnold, 1965.<br /> <br /> Hoy, Cyrus. “The Shares of Fletcher and his Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (I).” ''Studies in Bibliography'' 8, 1956, pp. 129-46.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. “The Authorship of ''Pericles'': The Evidence of Infinitives.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 40, no. 2, 1993, pp. 197–200. <br /> <br /> ———. ''Defining Shakespeare: Pericles as Test Case''. Oxford University Press, 2003.<br /> <br /> ———. “''Pericles'', Acts I and II: New Evidence for George Wilkins.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 37, no. 2, 1990, pp. 192–96. <br /> <br /> ———. “Reasoning about Rhyme: George Wilkins and Pericles.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 60, no. 3, 2013, pp. 434–38. <br /> <br /> ———. “Rhymes and Authors: Shakespeare, Wilkins, and ''Pericles''.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 58, no. 2, 2011, pp. 260–66.<br /> <br /> ———. ''Studies in Attribution: Middleton and Shakespeare''. Universität Salzburg, 1979.<br /> <br /> Jeffs, Robin, editor. ''The Works of John Day, Reprinted from the Collected Edition by A.H. Bullen (1881)''. Holland Press, 1963.<br /> <br /> Klause, John. “A Controversy over Rhyme and Authorship in ''Pericles''.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 59, no. 4, 2012, pp. 538–44.<br /> <br /> ———. “Rhyme and the Authorship of ''Pericles''.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 57, no. 3, 2010, pp. 395–400. <br /> <br /> Lake, David J. ''The Canon of Thomas Middleton’s Plays''. Cambridge University Press, 1975.<br /> <br /> ———. “The ‘Pericles’ Candidates - Heywood, Rowley, Wilkins.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 17, no. 4, 1970, pp. 135–41.<br /> <br /> ———. “Rhymes in ‘Pericles.’” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 16, no. 4, 1969, pp. 139–43.<br /> <br /> ———. “Wilkins and ‘Pericles’ - Vocabulary (I).” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 16, no. 8, 1969, pp. 288–91.<br /> <br /> Mooney, Michael E. “‘Framing’ as Collaborative Technique: Two Middleton-Rowley Plays.” ''Comparative Drama'' vol. 13 (1979), pp. 127-41.<br /> <br /> Nicol, David. ''Middleton and Rowley: Forms of Collaboration in the Jacobean Playhouse''. University of Toronto Press, 2012.<br /> <br /> ———. “The Name ‘Lillia Guida’ in William Rowley’s ''The Thracian Wonder''.” ''Notes and Queries'' vol. 50, 2003, pp. 441-43.<br /> <br /> Parr, Anthony, editor. ''Three Renaissance Travel Plays''. Manchester University Press, 1995.<br /> <br /> Prior, Roger. “The Life of George Wilkins.” ''Shakespeare Survey'', vol. 25, 1972, pp. 137–52.<br /> <br /> Robb, Dewar M. “The Canon of William Rowley’s Plays.” ''Modern Language Review'' 45, 1990, pp. 129-41.<br /> <br /> Sykes, H. Dugdale. ''Sidelights on Shakespeare''. Shakespeare Head, 1919.<br /> <br /> Vickers, Brian. ''Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays''. Oxford University Press, 2002.<br /> <br /> [[category: 1607]]<br /> [[category: Day, John]]<br /> [[category: Rowley, William]]<br /> [[category: Wilkins, George]]<br /> [[category: Queen Anne's Men]]<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by David Nicol; updated on 26 June 2023.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Nicol, David]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Travels_of_the_Three_English_Brothers,_The&diff=1223 2023-06-26T20:13:16Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== Year (composition) ==<br /> [[File:Travailesofthree00dayj_0009.jpg|alt=Title page of 1607 Quarto.|thumb|Title page of the 1607 Quarto. Barton Collection, Boston Public Library (G.3970.25). [https://archive.org/details/travailesofthree00dayj/page/n7/mode/2up Internet Archive]]] Written, performed and published in 1607 (Parr 7-9). <br /> <br /> == Year (first printed) ==<br /> 1607 (''STC'' 6417)<br /> <br /> == Reprints (until 1700) ==<br /> A second issue the same year (see below).<br /> <br /> == Authors (title-page ascription, including reprints) ==<br /> John Day, William Rowley and George Wilkins (not on title page but in a dedicatory epistle found in some copies of the text; see below). <br /> <br /> == Authors proposed (attribution scholarship) ==<br /> N/A<br /> <br /> == Genre ==<br /> History (prologue); travel play (Parr); adventure play (Wiggins 5: 381)<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> <br /> * Anthony Nixon, ''The Three English Brothers'' (1607); probably read in manuscript before publication (Parr 7-8).<br /> * William Parry, ''A New and Large Discourse of the Travels of Sir Anthony Sherley, Knight ... to the Persian Empire'' (1601) (Parr 84n).<br /> <br /> == Auspices ==<br /> The title page reads, “''As it is now play’d by her Maiesties Servants'',” referring to Queen Anne’s Men. The Stationer’s Register describes it as “played at the Curten,” while an allusion in ''The Knight of the Burning Pestle'' refers to it as a Red Bull play (Jeffs xvii). The company played at both playhouses in 1607 (Parr 55n).<br /> <br /> == External Documentary Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Payments ===<br /> N/A<br /> <br /> === Stationers' Register ===<br /> The Stationer’s Register entry for the quarto (29 June, 1607) does not name the authors. <br /> <br /> === Title-page ascription(s) ===<br /> [[File:Travailes-folg-stc6417-dedication.jpg|alt=Dedicatory epistle in the Folger Shakespeare Library copy of the 1607 Quarto.|thumb|Dedicatory epistle in the Folger Shakespeare Library copy of the 1607. Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C. (STC 6417). Kindly photographed by Rachel White. [https://catalog.folger.edu/record/163366 Folger Shakespeare Library]]] A second issue of the 1607 quarto adds an inserted page containing a dedicatory epistle signed by the authors, “Iohn Day. William Rowley. George Wilkins.” According to W.W. Greg, “the leaf appears to have been added after most of the copies were sold” and appears in the copies held by the British Library, the Dyce Collection (National Art Gallery, London), and the Folger Shakespeare Library (Greg, Bibliography, 1: 381).<br /> <br /> In the epistle, the authors refer to themselves in the plural as “we” and to “our worthlesse Pennes.” <br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (external) ===<br /> ''Travels'' was written within the brief period of time (1606-8) in which George Wilkins attempted to make a living as a writer (Prior 137). Its subject matter accords with the “special interest in Mediterranean histories” that is apparent in all his work (Honigmann 196). <br /> <br /> John Day spent much of his career writing collaborative plays, and this three-way partnership is thus no surprise (see Jeffs ix-xv). There is no other evidence of him writing with Rowley, but some scholars have argued that he had already collaborated with Wilkins on ''Law Tricks'' (Jeffs xv).<br /> <br /> William Rowley’s name in the quarto text of ''Travels'' is the earliest historical record of his existence. An actor-playwright, it is possible, but not certain, that he was a player in Queen Anne’s Men when they performed ''Travels''. The presence of a scene involving the famous clown Kempe is interesting, given Rowley’s specialization in clown acting (see Nicol, ''Middleton and Rowley'' 71-2). There are no further biographical connections between him and Day or Wilkins, but Wilkins’ prose work '''Three Miseries of Barbary'' is a source for a character’s name in Rowley’s ''The Thracian Wonder'' (Nicol, “Name”). <br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (external) ===<br /> See ‘Auspices’ above.<br /> <br /> The title page announces, “''As it is now play’d by her Maiesties Servants''”. Ernst Honigmann notes that it was rare for a play to be printed while it was still being performed onstage (188); the phrase “''now play'd''” is without parallel for “a new play between 1590 and 1616, the regular form being always in the past” (179). He finds it significant that the only exception is another Wilkins play, ''The Miseries of Enforced Marriage'', performed by the King’s Men in the same year that it was published. Honigmann thus proposes that Wilkins had a habit of taking his plays to the press while they were still being performed, and without permission from the players (180). <br /> <br /> === Allusions ===<br /> A joke in ''The Knight of the Burning Pestle'' alludes to Travels but makes no reference to its authorship (Jeffs xvii). <br /> <br /> === Print and MS attributions ===<br /> None noted.<br /> <br /> == Internal Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Explanation of terms ===<br /> In the summaries below, it should be noted that almost all of the scholars cited (with the exception of Bullen and Golding) are analyzing ''Travels'' in order to determine whether George Wilkins contributed to Shakespeare’s ''Pericles''. “''Pericles'' 1-2” refers to the first two acts of that play, which are thought to contain most of Wilkins’ work; “''Pericles'' 3-5” refers to the last three acts, which are thought to be primarily written by Shakespeare. “''Travels'' W” refers to the scenes of the play that the scholars believe to be mostly by Wilkins; “''Travels'' D&amp;R” refers to the other scenes in the play, assumed to be by Day and/or Rowley (see ‘Critical Debate,’ below, for an explanation of how these sections were determined). Finally, ''Miseries'' refers to ''The Miseries of Enforced Marriage'', the only known solo play by Wilkins. <br /> <br /> === Palaeographical evidence ===<br /> N/A<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (internal) ===<br /> None.<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (internal) ===<br /> None.<br /> <br /> === Metrical evidence ===<br /> The earliest scholars of the play attributed authorship of individual scenes based on vague assessments of meter. According to A.H. Bullen, F.G. Fleay based his division of the play on Rowley’s “peculiar system of blank verse” and on Wilkins’ “short lines, especially 4-feet lines” (Bullen 19n1). Bullen himself referred to Rowley’s “grating metrical irregularities” in scene 7 (20). Robert Boyle similarly thought Rowley had a distinctively “uneven metre” but found no obvious metrical differences between Wilkins and Day (327).<br /> <br /> In ''Defining Shakespeare'' (2003), MacDonald P. Jackson attempted a more rigorous analysis of Wilkins’ meter, using Ants Oras’ technique of comparing the pause patterns in Wilkins’ verse with that of Shakespeare (for Jackson’s description of Oras’s method, see 64-66, and for his own adaptation of it, see 86-7). Using the raw figures to create a “Pearson product moment correlation,” Jackson produced “a mathematical measure” of the relative differences. Ranking Shakespeare’s and Wilkins’ plays in terms of closeness to ''Pericles'' 3-5, he found ''Travels'' W to be 23rd out of 42 (89). Ranking them in terms of closeness to ''Pericles'' 1-2, he found ''Travels'' W at 15 out of 42. Wilkins’ section of ''Travels'' is thus somewhat closer to his section of ''Pericles'' than to Shakespeare’s; Jackson attributed the relatively undramatic difference (which contrasts with a more extreme result for Wilkins’ ''Miseries of Enforced Marriage'') to ''Travels'' being a collaboration, and specifically to the influence of Day (88-90). <br /> <br /> Using the same data, Jackson used a “chi-square statistic” to estimate “the probability that the two sets of figures could have been randomly drawn from the same parent population” (91). Comparing the Wilkins plays with six Shakespeare plays, he found ''Travels'' W and ''Miseries'' to be much less similar to Pericles 3-5 than the Shakespeare plays. However, although he didn’t say this, the data for his comparison of the plays with ''Pericles'' 1-2 shows ''Travels'' W to be very unlike it, whereas ''Miseries'' is very similar (93).<br /> <br /> ==Evidence of rhymes==<br /> H. Dugdale Sykes was the first to note, in 1919, that Wilkins appears to have constantly used the same set of rhymes, which may indicate his presence (156-8). <br /> <br /> In “Rhymes in ''Pericles''” (1969), David J. Lake explored Wilkins’ rhyming more systematically. He noted the assonantal nature of some of the rhymes in ''Pericles'' (such as sung/come in the first two lines), which are rare in Shakespeare and argued that they cannot be explained as deliberate archaisms because numerous examples are found in ''Travels'' and ''The Miseries of Enforced Marriage'' (139-40). Finding such rhymes also to be rare in Day and infrequent in Rowley, Lake determined Wilkins to be the culprit, and noted that all but one of the examples in Travels fall within the scenes traditionally associated with Wilkins (141-2).<br /> <br /> Lake also explored more thoroughly Sykes’s reference to Wilkins’ tendency to “mingle” rhyming and blank verse. He noted that Wilkins tended to include rhymes in the middle of a blank verse or even prose speech, rather than putting them at the end, and that he also often put unrhyming lines in the middle of a rhymed speech (142; Lake called the latter lines ‘rifts’). Lake also noted ‘rafts’ (rhymed sections preceded and followed by blank verse), finding 25 in the Wilkins scenes; there were only 7 elsewhere, all of which he attributed to Rowley, who was “as careless in this matter as Wilkins” (142).<br /> <br /> In ''Defining Shakespeare'' (2003), Jackson cited Lake’s study of rhymes approvingly, then presented his own study of whether rhymes in ''Miseries'' are repeated in other plays, including ''Travels'' W (his methodology is explained at 97-102). He came up with a table ranking the percentages of rhymes that the plays share with ''Miseries''. ''Pericles'' 1-2 comes first with 40% and ''Travels'' W is next with 26.7%. After that comes ''Measure for Measure'', with 23.9%. Jackson thus concluded that the first two plays are much more ‘Wilkinsian’ in their rhymes (102). <br /> <br /> In two ''Notes and Queries'' articles in the 2010s, John Klause claimed that there are logical flaws in Jackson’s counting of rhymes and argued that the distinctions among the plays are not as clear as he had made them look (“Rhyme”, “Controversy”). Jackson rejected Klause’s arguments (“Reasoning”, “Rhymes”). ''Travels'' is mentioned only briefly in this debate and nothing new is said about it. <br /> <br /> === Chronological evidence ===<br /> N/A<br /> <br /> === Vocabulary ===<br /> In 1969, David J. Lake argued that Wilkins’ work contains an unusual preponderance of the of the words ''yon'' (and related words) and ''sin'', with a frequency much higher than that in Shakespeare, Day or Rowley. In ''Travels'', he noted that ''yon'' and related words appear only in the scenes attributed to Wilkins (“Wilkins” 289-90). He also noted that every instance of ''sin'' in the Wilkins scenes is “uncalled for by the context,” which he regarded as evidence for it being “a favourite word” in contrast to the unremarkable instances in the works for Rowley and Day (“Wilkins” 291).<br /> <br /> === Oaths and interjections ===<br /> None noted.<br /> <br /> === Linguistic evidence ===<br /> H. Dugdale Sykes’s ''Sidelights on Shakespeare'' (1929) paid close attention to Wilkins’ quirky grammatical constructions, including some examples from ''Travels'' (152, 154-55, 157, 158, 162-3, 170-71, 172, 187, 188n1, 195). He concluded that Wilkins's writing is marked by three oddities:<br /> * “Frequent omission of the relative pronoun in the nominative case” (150), although he notes only one example in ''Travels'' (152)<br /> * Verbal antitheses, which “run riot” through his share of ''Travels'' (152)<br /> * “Repeating a word within the line,” which he does “two or three times” in ''Travels'' (155). <br /> <br /> In 1990, MacDonald P. Jackson elaborated on a point briefly made by E.A.J. Honigmann (194) about Wilkins’ unusual uses of the word ''which''. He defined three especially important unusual forms:<br /> * ''which'' meaning ‘and this’ and qualifying a noun that immediately follows<br /> * ''which'' preceded by the definite article<br /> * ''which'' beginning a speech that is not a question (“''Pericles''” 193)<br /> <br /> In ''Travels'', he found that “the three-fifths of the play that Lake follows Sykes in ascribing to Wilkins” contains an amount “well below that for acts I and II of ''Pericles'', but much closer to theirs than is the work of other dramatists” while the parts allocated to Day and Rowley contain just one (196). The argument is strengthened by his inclusion of other plays by Day and Rowley in the tests. Jackson reiterates these findings in ''Defining Shakespeare'' (128). <br /> <br /> In a 1993 article, Jackson proposed that the frequent presence of infinitive forms of verbs can be an indicator of Wilkins. The “rate of infinitives per 1000 words” compared to Shakespeare and to selected Day and Rowley plays, turned out to be “anomalously high” in ''Pericles'' 1-2, and in Wilkins’ other plays (“Authorship” 198). In regard to ''Travels'', Jackson showed that the rate in the purported Wilkins section was higher than that in the share apportioned to Day and Rowley (199). He also tested the general frequency of the word ''to'' in selected plays and found that “Wilkins is the most prominent presence” among the plays with the highest frequencies, including his section of ''Travels'', although he acknowledged that Heywood and Massinger scored highly too (200). Overall, Jackson concludes that this is further supporting evidence for Wilkins.<br /> <br /> In ''Defining Shakespeare'' (2003), Jackson enhanced this study of infinitives. Comparing the rate of infinitives in the W section of ''Travels'' compared to the D&amp;R section, he finds it at 17.5/1000 words compared to 9.7, and considers the probability of this being chance as “less than a thousand” (120-22n67). And returning to the amount of the word to, he found both of two samples from ''Travels'' W appearing in the top 10 of plays (122-23). <br /> <br /> ''Defining Shakespeare'' includes the results of many studies by Jackson of ''Pericles'' that support Wilkins’ authorship of scenes attributed to him in ''Travels'':<br /> * He studied Wilkins’ habit of treating “combinations of personal pronouns followed by are or have” as monosyllabic rather than disyllabic; he found after a “quick count” that the ratio in ''Travels'' W is congruent with ''Pericles'' 1-2 (95). <br /> * In an expansive study of function words, he counted occurrences of the words ''a'', ''and'', ''but'', ''by'', ''for'', ''from'', ''in it'', ''of'', ''that'', ''the'', ''to'', and with using “eighty-six samples from plays by known dramatists” collected for his 1979 study of Middleton’s collaborations (113). He supplemented these with “a third and fourth sample from” ''Miseries'', “two samples from Wilkins’ share of” ''Travels'', “one sample from the portion of ''The Travels'' generally attributed to Wilkins’ collaborators” and “one sample from that portion of William Rowley’s ''A Woman Never Vexed'' which David Lake tentatively assigned to Wilkins, namely the last two acts” (115; for an explanation of the situation with this play, see ‘Critical Commentary’ below). Each sample consisted of “one thousand consecutive instances of the thirteen selected function words” except for ''Travels'' D&amp;R, where “there was not quite enough text to provide a sample of the standard size” (115). In the end, Jackson had created 112 samples, including seven from Wilkins and nine from Shakespeare. He then calculated the “chi-square fit” of each sample with each of the two sections of ''Pericles'' to assess their similarities (116). When they were compared with ''Pericles' 3-5, ''Travels'' D&amp;R was number 7 out of 112 (Jackson didn’t say where the Wilkins samples appeared). When compared with ''Pericles'' 1-2, ''Miseries'' came first in terms of closeness, and the two samples of ''Travels'' W came third and fifth respectively, indicating a strong connection between these texts (no Shakespeare plays appear in the top 10); ''Travels'' D&amp;R is at #59, suggesting it to be very different (Table 14, p. 117). <br /> * He studied the ratio of ''most'' to ''unto'', another indicator of Wilkins writing Pericles 1-2, as Wilkins tended to use ''unto'' more often than ''most''; this is true of ''Travels'' W too (137). Jackson studied the ratio in three plays each by Day and Rowley and found Rowley using most rather more than Day did; although the numbers are small, he claimed that “such as they are, they reflect accurately the slight difference between Day’s and Rowley’s practices.” <br /> * Considering the linguistic markers such as those studied by Cyrus Hoy, David Lake and himself in their studies of the Fletcher and Middleton canons, Jackson found the Wilkins canon unconducive to such studies, given its small number of texts (139). However, discussing the use of ''ye'' (as opposed to ''you''), he noted that in their non-collaborative plays, “neither Day nor Wilkins made very much use of ''ye'', whereas Rowley, whose plays vary in his treatment of the pronoun, used it 34 times in ''A Shoemaker a Gentleman'' (1608), the Rowley play that is easily the nearest to ''Travels'' in its date of composition” and he thus noted that “it appears significant that occurrences of ''ye'' cluster within scenes” attributed to Rowley; 16 of the 25 examples occur there, even though he only wrote about quarter of the play (139). <br /> * He studied has/hath and does/doth ratios, finding ''Travels'' W to reflect Wilkins’ greater tendency toward ''hath'' and ''doth'' (140). He also found commonalities between ''Travels'' W and the other Wilkins-related texts in the rareness of contractions using ''th’'' and the use of ''’t'', ''h’as'' and ''him’s'' (141). <br /> <br /> === Stage directions ===<br /> None noted.<br /> <br /> === Verbal parallels ===<br /> Although he was not systematic in proving it, Robert Boyle was the first to argue that Wilkins was a habitual repeater of phrases and that these “Wilkinsisms” can help to identify him. He provided a list of parallel passages between ''Pericles'', ''Travels'', and ''Miseries'' (327-9). <br /> <br /> S.R. Golding was one of the few scholars to be interested in Day’s contribution; he proposed some verbal parallels with his other plays (418-20). <br /> <br /> In ''Defining Shakespeare'', Jackson notes some parallel passages in which the same distinctive uses of words appear in both ''Pericles'' and ''Travels'' (145-7).<br /> <br /> === Image clusters ===<br /> None noted.<br /> <br /> == Critical Debate ==<br /> There is no doubt as to the identities of the authors of Travels, but there has been debate and discussion over how they divided their work. Overall, attribution studies appear at first glance to have arrived at a consensus, but the contributions of Day and Rowley are in fact less clear than those of Wilkins. This is because most studies have been undertaken with a view toward determining Wilkins’ share in ''Pericles''; they thus treat ''Travels'' as a side-project and are less interested in distinguishing Day and Rowley from one another. <br /> <br /> The overall story of approaches to ''Travels'' is as follows. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, several scholars attempted to ascertain who wrote which scene, ranging from brief and impressionistic comments to a very detailed study by H. Dugdale Sykes conducted as part of his study of ''Pericles''. A vague consensus emerged, at least about Wilkins’ contributions. In the 1960s, David J. Lake, focusing on ''Pericles'', brought a more rigorous methodology, using various approaches to linguistic and rhyming eccentricities. His assumptions about ''Travels'' were based on the apparent existing consensus. MacDonald P. Jackson conducted further studies as part of his work on ''Pericles'' in the 1990s and 2000s. While the case for Wilkins’ authorship of Pericles is now extremely clear and convincing, ''Travels'' still awaits a modern scholar who will pay attention to it for its own sake and look more closely at the other authors. <br /> <br /> It is helpful here to summarize the approximate consensus that emerged from the earliest studies of the play. What follows is a scene-by-scene breakdown with comments on the claims for authorship made in the earliest studies. I have highlighted the proposed authors to enable a quick visual impression of which scenes produced consistent attributions and which did not. The sources are as follows:<br /> * F.G. Fleay studied the authorship of ''Travels'' in the 1870s, presumably during the creation of his 1874 study of ''Pericles''. A.H. Bullen (see below) quoted Fleay’s conclusions, which had partially influenced his own (19-20). I have not identified a published source for these quotations; perhaps Bullen was quoting a private letter. Fleay would later publish a slightly different breakdown of the scenes in 1891 (see below), but I have included both versions as the first was an influence on Bullen and Boyle.<br /> * A.H. Bullen’s brief thoughts in his edition of ''The Works of John Day'' (1881) are a vague, incomplete, and impressionistic survey, but deserve note as the first published study. Bullen was responding to the ideas of Fleay (see above). <br /> * Robert Boyle’s study of Wilkins and ''Pericles'' (1885) was also responding to Fleay as quoted by Bullen (see above). <br /> * F.G. Fleay finally published his breakdown of the play’s authorship in his ''Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama'' (1891). It referred to metrical analysis but offered no data. It contained two differences from what he had communicated to Bullen in the 1870s (see above): Fleay appears to have changed his mind about the authorship of scenes 12 and 13. <br /> * H. Dugdayle Sykes, in ''Sidelights in Shakespeare'' (1919), studied a variety of evidence including verbal parallels.<br /> * S.R. Golding’s study of “Day and Wilkins as Collaborators” (1926) is also centered on verbal parallels. <br /> * Dewar M. Robb’s study of the Rowley canon (1950) lacks supporting evidence for its conclusions, but is worth noting as a rare example of a study by a Rowley scholar. <br /> <br /> In what follows, I have also attempted to clarify the confusing matter of scene divisions. Q is not divided into scenes; Parr’s edition is the first to do so. Unless there is evidence otherwise, I assume the scholars’ scene divisions to be the same as Parr’s (which seem to me logical); Boyle (326), Sykes (145n1) and Robb (135), however, divide the play according to a slightly different model (to my mind, incorrectly). Line references are to Parr.<br /> <br /> * '''Prologue.''' Few scholars have addressed the authorship of the Prologue. Fleay and Golding attributed it to '''Rowley'''; no other study directly attributes an author to it.<br /> * '''Scene 1.''' Anthony and Robert Sherley impress the Sophy of Persia and incur the jealousy of Halibeck and Calimath. Bullen thought the author was Rowley, being typically at “too high a key”, lacking “naturalness and freedom” and having a style “forced without being dignified” (20). Fleay, Boyle and Golding also attributed it to '''Rowley'''.<br /> * '''Scene 2.''' Anthony and Robert help the Sophy defeat the Turks; the Sophy sends Anthony and Halibeck to forge an alliance with the Christian world against them. Bullen thought it Wilkins at first, but Rowley from 89 onward, especially the “savagely eloquent” 128-33 (20). However, Fleay, Boyle, Sykes and Golding attributed the entire scene to '''Wilkins'''. <br /> * '''Scene 3.''' The Sophy's Niece falls in love with Robert; in this comic scene, the Niece and her maid frequently speak in prose. Bullen saw Day in the “playful naughtiness” of the conversation between the Sophy’s Niece and Dalibra (19). Fleay, Boyle and Golding also attributed it to '''Day'''. <br /> * '''Scene 4.''' A short scene (49 lines), beginning with a speech by the Chorus; Anthony arrives in Russia but is arrested when Halibeck spreads rumours of his low birth. Fleay cautiously attributed it to '''Day'''. Boyle thought it was '''Day or Rowley'''. But Sykes and Golding attributed it to '''Wilkins'''.<br /> * '''Scene 5.''' The Chorus explains how Anthony was released after the rumour was quashed; he is welcomed to Rome. Fleay cautiously attributed it to '''Day'''. Boyle was certain only that it wasn’t Wilkins. But Sykes and Golding attributed it to '''Wilkins'''.<br /> * '''Scene 6.''' The Chorus describes Thomas's voyage to see his brothers; Thomas lands on a Greek island and is captured by Turks. Fleay, Boyle, Sykes and Golding attributed it to '''Wilkins'''. Boyle proposed that the Chorus could be Rowley, as its geographical confusions would not have been made by Day or Wilkins (328); however, the Chorus is in fact following the source material (see Parr, n. to 6.16).<br /> * '''Scene 7.''' Robert captures Turkish prisoners in battle; one of them is a Christian who gives him a message from Thomas, imprisoned in Constantinople. Fleay, Boyle and Golding attributed this scene to '''Rowley'''. <br /> * '''Scene 8.''' The Great Turk refuses Robert's offer of a prisoner swap, after realizing Thomas’s importance. Fleay, Boyle, Golding and Sykes attributed it to '''Wilkins'''.<br /> * '''Scene 9.''' Anthony is in Venice and needs to repay a debt to Zariph the Jew; he also watches the English actor Will Kemp engage in comic repartee with commedia dell'arte actors; this section is mostly prose. Bullen saw '''Rowley’s''' “grossness” in the Kemp scene, but also '''Day''' in the “quickness and pertness of the sallies” (19). He could not accept that Day created Zariph the Jew (19n1), attributing him to Rowley because he is “very life-like” but drawn with a “few rough strokes” rather than as a “finished sketch” (19-20). However, Fleay, Boyle and Golding attributed the entire scene to '''Day''' (note that Boyle treats 9 and 10 as one scene, which he calls “9”).<br /> * '''Scene 10.''' Halibeck has intercepted money sent by the Sophy to Anthony and plots with Zariph to deny it to him; Anthony is then arrested by Zariph at a banquet. Fleay and Golding attributed it to '''Rowley'''. Boyle attributed it to '''Day''' (note that Boyle treats 9 and 10 as one scene, which he calls “9”). <br /> * '''Scene 11.''' The Sophy discovers that his Niece loves Robert and fakes his execution before allowing them to marry. Bullen attributed to Day the Niece’s “spirited” avowal of love for Robert and defiance of his accusers, claiming that his heroines have a “charming frankness of manner” and “know how to express their likes and dislikes gracefully and vigorously” (19). Fleay also attributed it to '''Day'''. However, Boyle and Sykes attributed it to '''Wilkins''' (note that they call this scene “10”; Boyle also states incorrectly that Fleay attributed it to Rowley). Golding, unusually, considers it to be by both '''Day and Wilkins''' in collaboration. <br /> * '''Scene 12.''' Thomas is tortured by the Great Turk but is saved when an English agent requests his freedom. Bullen attributed it to '''Day''', as did Fleay in his 1870s study; however, by 1891, Fleay had attributed it to '''Wilkins'''. Some critics divide the scene in two, viz:<br /> ** '''12.1-57.''' Boyle called this section “scene 11” and regarded it as '''Day''', but thought the Jailer’s opening prose speech (1-16) might be '''Wilkins'''. Golding attributed it to '''Day'''.<br /> ** '''12.58-155'''. Boyle, Sykes and Golding attributed this to '''Wilkins''' (note that Boyle and Sykes called this section “scene 12”). <br /> * '''Scene 13.''' Robert has a child with the Niece and discusses its baptism with a Hermit; Halibeck tells the Sophy that Anthony's mission was a failure but Robert proves Halibeck the cause and has him executed; the Sophy permits Robert to baptize his child and build a church in Persia. Bullen attributed it to '''Wilkins''', as it is “carefully and equably written” (20). However, most scholars have considered this scene to have divided authorship, ''viz'':<br /> ** '''13.1-175.''' Fleay attributed this to '''Day''' in his 1870s study. However, in his 1891 publication he attributed it to '''Wilkins''', as did Boyle, Sykes (implicitly) and Golding.<br /> ** '''13.176-202'''. In the last few lines of the scene, the Sophy agrees to let Robert build a church and a Christian school in Persia. Fleay, Boyle and Golding attributed these lines to '''Rowley'''. <br /> * '''Epilogue.''' The Chorus reports on the fates of the other two brothers. Fleay in the 1870s and Bullen attributed it to '''Rowley''' (20), but no other study directly attributes an author to it.<br /> <br /> It will be seen from this list that there is a fairly strong consensus, but not for all scenes. The major disagreements are over scenes 4 and 5, 10, and 11, and they have not been fully addressed in subsequent scholarship. Most studies have not directly addressed the authorship of the prologue or epilogue. <br /> <br /> Overall, Sykes was the most influential upon subsequent scholarship. F.D. Hoeniger cited him approvingly in the 1963 Arden ''Pericles'' (lx-xi); so too did Brian Vickers in his detailed survey of the ''Pericles'' studies (297-306), although he cautioned that Sykes’ methodology was not always systematic or entirely accurate (297, 302).<br /> <br /> Sykes’ influence became very important when David J. Lake returned to ''Travels'' for a series of articles investigating ''Pericles''. Lake followed Sykes’ conclusions about Wilkins’ presence in that play (142) and labelled his attributed scenes “''Travels'' W,” treating them as a consistent text against which theories could be tested. Jackson used the same approach in his studies of ''Pericles'' in the 1990s and 2000s, sometimes also combining together the rest of the scenes as “Travels D&amp;R.” <br /> <br /> More work needs to be done on Day and Rowley’s contributions. But this does not diminish the very compelling work that scholars have done on Wilkins. Jackson summarises by saying that if one simply counts instances of three pieces of evidence mentioned above: the uses of ‘which’, the elisions of the relative pronoun, and the assonantal near-rhymes, one can see an enormous difference between ''Travels'' W, ''Miseries'' and ''Pericles'' 1-2 on the one hand, and ''Travels'' D&amp;R and ''Pericles'' 3-5 on the other: the former group contains an enormously higher number of these features than the other group (''Defining'' 160-1). Overall, Jackson concludes that all the evidence combines “to form a style that appears in ''Pericles'' 1-2, ''The Miseries of Enforced Marriage'', Wilkins’s share of ''The Travels of the Three English Brothers'', and nowhere else in English Renaissance drama” (169).<br /> <br /> == Critical Commentary ==<br /> The relative lack of interest in Rowley has resulted in some confusion that might complicate the findings of these studies. In “The ‘Pericles’ Candidates,” Lake studied Rowley’s ''A New Wonder, a Woman Never Vexed'', a play often noted to have a marked change of style in its last two acts. He observed that the style seemed familiar: whoever wrote those two acts could also have written the ‘Wilkins’ section of ''Travels''. Lake resolved this problem by proposing that Wilkins did indeed write Acts 4 and 5 of ''New Wonder'' (140-1). However, in ''Defining Shakespeare'', Jackson was inconsistent in his treatment of ''New Wonder'': in a footnote, he refused to go so far as to accept it into the Wilkins canon (as Acts 4-5 contain some of his characteristics but not others), but he admitted that the possibility “needs further investigation” (115n59). Yet in his study of function words, he found ''New Wonder'' 4-5 ranked 8th out of 112 plays in terms of closeness to ''Pericles'' 1-2, leading him to suggest that Lake may have been correct about its authorship (116). However, later in the same book, he treats the play unproblematically as Rowley’s (137). It seems clear that any study of Wilkins needs to look more closely at ''A New Wonder'', in case it may represent a second example of a collaboration between Rowley and Wilkins. <br /> <br /> == Further Thoughts ==<br /> One intriguing parallel has gone overlooked. The epistle by the authors includes the line “to all well-willers to those worthy subjects of our worthless pens.” This is echoed in the dedicatory epistle to Middleton and Rowley’s ''A Fair Quarrel'' (1616), signed by Rowley, which says of the dedicatee, “''his poor well-willer wishes his best wishes''” (3); there is also a similarity with the epistle to the reader in Middleton and Rowley’s ''The World Tossed at Tennis'' (1620), again written by Rowley, which begins “''To the well-wishing, well-reading understander''.” If Rowley wrote the epistle to ''Travels'', this might suggest that he had a more important role in its writing and publication than has been considered. <br /> <br /> Also of note is that the scholarly consensus gives Rowley the beginning and end of the play, something often seen in his later collaborations with Middleton (Mooney; Nicol, ''Middleton and Rowley'' 26-32). <br /> <br /> == Works Cited ==<br /> Boyle, Robert. “On Wilkins’ Share in the Play Called Shakspere’s ''Pericles''.” ''New Shakspere Society’s Transactions'' 8, 1886, pp. 323–40. <br /> <br /> Bullen, A. H., editor. ''The Works of John Day, Now First Collected, with an Introduction and Notes''. Chiswick Press, 1881. <br /> <br /> Fleay, F.G. “On the Play of ''Pericles''.” ''New Shakspere Society’s Transactions'', vol. 1, 1874, pp. 195–209.<br /> <br /> ———. ''A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama''. Reeves and Turner, 1891.<br /> <br /> Golding, S. R. “Day and Wilkins as Collaborators.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 150, no. 24, 1926, pp. 417–21 and vol. 150, no. 25, 1926, pp. 436–38.<br /> <br /> Hoeniger, F. D., editor. ''Pericles''. Methuen, 1963.<br /> <br /> Honigmann, E. A. J. ''The Stability of Shakespeare’s Text''. Edward Arnold, 1965.<br /> <br /> Hoy, Cyrus. “The Shares of Fletcher and his Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (I).” ''Studies in Bibliography'' 8, 1956, pp. 129-46.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. “The Authorship of ''Pericles'': The Evidence of Infinitives.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 40, no. 2, 1993, pp. 197–200. <br /> <br /> ———. ''Defining Shakespeare: Pericles as Test Case''. Oxford University Press, 2003.<br /> <br /> ———. “''Pericles'', Acts I and II: New Evidence for George Wilkins.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 37, no. 2, 1990, pp. 192–96. <br /> <br /> ———. “Reasoning about Rhyme: George Wilkins and Pericles.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 60, no. 3, 2013, pp. 434–38. <br /> <br /> ———. “Rhymes and Authors: Shakespeare, Wilkins, and ''Pericles''.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 58, no. 2, 2011, pp. 260–66.<br /> <br /> ———. ''Studies in Attribution: Middleton and Shakespeare''. Universität Salzburg, 1979.<br /> <br /> Jeffs, Robin, editor. ''The Works of John Day, Reprinted from the Collected Edition by A.H. Bullen (1881)''. Holland Press, 1963.<br /> <br /> Klause, John. “A Controversy over Rhyme and Authorship in ''Pericles''.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 59, no. 4, 2012, pp. 538–44.<br /> <br /> ———. “Rhyme and the Authorship of ''Pericles''.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 57, no. 3, 2010, pp. 395–400. <br /> <br /> Lake, David J. ''The Canon of Thomas Middleton’s Plays''. Cambridge University Press, 1975.<br /> <br /> ———. “The ‘Pericles’ Candidates - Heywood, Rowley, Wilkins.” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 17, no. 4, 1970, pp. 135–41.<br /> <br /> ———. “Rhymes in ‘Pericles.’” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 16, no. 4, 1969, pp. 139–43.<br /> <br /> ———. “Wilkins and ‘Pericles’ - Vocabulary (I).” ''Notes and Queries'', vol. 16, no. 8, 1969, pp. 288–91.<br /> <br /> Mooney, Michael E. “‘Framing’ as Collaborative Technique: Two Middleton-Rowley Plays.” ''Comparative Drama'' vol. 13 (1979), pp. 127-41.<br /> <br /> Nicol, David. ''Middleton and Rowley: Forms of Collaboration in the Jacobean Playhouse''. University of Toronto Press, 2012.<br /> <br /> ———. “The Name ‘Lillia Guida’ in William Rowley’s ''The Thracian Wonder''.” ''Notes and Queries'' vol. 50, 2003, pp. 441-43.<br /> <br /> Parr, Anthony, editor. ''Three Renaissance Travel Plays''. Manchester University Press, 1995.<br /> <br /> Prior, Roger. “The Life of George Wilkins.” ''Shakespeare Survey'', vol. 25, 1972, pp. 137–52.<br /> <br /> Robb, Dewar M. “The Canon of William Rowley’s Plays.” ''Modern Language Review'' 45, 1990, pp. 129-41.<br /> <br /> Sykes, H. Dugdale. ''Sidelights on Shakespeare''. Shakespeare Head, 1919.<br /> <br /> Vickers, Brian. ''Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays''. Oxford University Press, 2002.<br /> <br /> [[category: 1607]]<br /> [[category: Day, John]]<br /> [[category: Rowley, William]]<br /> [[category: Wilkins, George]]<br /> [[category: Queen Anne's Men]]<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by David Nicol; updated on 26 June 2023.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Nicol, David]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=File:Travailes-folg-stc6417-dedication.jpg&diff=1222 2023-06-26T19:52:18Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=File:Travailesofthree00dayj_0009.jpg&diff=1221 2023-06-26T19:42:10Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Lin,_Erika_T.&diff=1218 2023-05-04T10:12:36Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Fixed link</p> <hr /> <div>[[category:contributors]]<br /> <br /> '''[https://www.gc.cuny.edu/people/erika-t-lin Erika T. Lin]''' is an Associate Professor in the Ph.D. Program in Theatre and Performance at the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is the author of ''Shakespeare and the Materiality of Performance'', which received the 2013 David Bevington Award for Best New Book in Early Drama Studies. With Gina Bloom and Tom Bishop, she edited ''Games and Theatre in Shakespeare’s England'' (2021), supported in part by a fellowship from the American Society for Theatre Research. Her prize-winning articles have appeared in ''Theatre Journal'', ''New Theatre Quarterly'', and elsewhere. She is now writing a book on seasonal festivities and early modern commercial theatre, a project recognized by various honors and grants including an Andrew W. Mellon Long-Term Fellowship at the Folger Shakespeare Library. She recently served as the Book Review Editor of Theatre Survey and as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Shakespeare Association of America, for whom she continues as the Board representative to the Bylaws Committee.</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Play_Titles_W,_X,_Y,_Z&diff=1217 2023-04-15T15:54:36Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Added Witches of Lancashire as alternative name</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;&gt;'''Browse other play titles:'''<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''[[Play Titles A, B|A, B]]''' | '''[[Play Titles C|C]]''' | '''[[Play Titles D, E|D, E]]''' | '''[[Play Titles F, G|F, G]]''' | '''[[Play Titles H, I, J, K|H, I, J, K]]''' | '''[[Play Titles L, M|L, M]]''' | '''[[Play Titles N, O, P|N, O, P]]''' | '''[[Play Titles Q, R, S|Q, R, S]]''' | '''[[Play Titles T, U, V|T, U, V]]''' | '''[[Play Titles W, X, Y, Z|W, X, Y, Z]]'''&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;This list is sortable: click the icon next to &quot;Title&quot;, &quot;Year&quot;, &quot;Dramatist&quot; or &quot;Auspices&quot; to sort the list alphabetically/chronologically. <br /> &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable collapsible&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! scope=&quot;col&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; |Title<br /> ! scope=&quot;col&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; |Year<br /> ! scope=&quot;col&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; |Dramatist<br /> ! scope=&quot;col&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; |Auspices<br /> |- <br /> | [[Wandering Lovers, The]]||[[:category:1609|1609]]||[[:category:Fletcher, John|John Fletcher]], [[:category:Massinger, Philip|Philip Massinger]]||[[:category:King's Men|King's Men]]<br /> |- <br /> | [[West Indies, The]] [LOST]||[[:category:1601|1601]]||[[:category:Day, John|John Day]], [[:category:Haughton, William|William Haughton]], [[:category:Smith, Wentworth|Wentworth Smith]]||[[:category:Admiral's Men|Admiral's Men]]<br /> |-<br /> | [[Westward Ho]]||[[:category:1604|1604]]||[[:category:Dekker, Thomas|Thomas Dekker]], [[:category:Webster, John|John Webster]]||[[:category:Children of Paul's|Children of Paul's]]<br /> |- <br /> | [[Wit at Several Weapons]]||[[:category:1613|1613]]||[[:category:Middleton, Thomas|Thomas Middleton]], [[:category:Rowley, William|William Rowley]]||Unknown<br /> |- <br /> | [[Wit Without Money]]||[[:category:1614|1614]]||[[:category:Fletcher, John|John Fletcher]], [[:category:Shirley, James|James Shirley]]||[[:category:Lady Elizabeth's Men|Lady Elizabeth's Men]]<br /> |- <br /> | [[Witch of Edmonton, The]]||[[:category:1609|1609]]||[[:category:Dekker, Thomas|Thomas Dekker]], [[:category:Ford, John|John Ford]], [[:category:Rowley, William|William Rowley]]||[[:category:Prince Charles's Men|Prince Charles's Men]]<br /> |-<br /> | [[Witches of Lancashire, The]]||[[:category:1634|1634]]||[[:category:Heywood, Thomas|Thomas Heywood]], [[:category:Brome, Richard|Richard Brome]]||[[:category:King's Men|King's Men]]<br /> |- <br /> | [[Woman Hater, The]]||[[:category:1606|1606]]||[[:category:Beaumont, Francis|Francis Beaumont]], [[:category:Fletcher, John|John Fletcher]]||[[:category:Children of Paul's|Children of Paul's]]<br /> |- <br /> | [[Woman's Mistake, The]] [LOST]||[[:category:1623|1623]]||[[:category:Drue, Thomas|Thomas Drue]], [[:category:Davenport, Robert|Robert Davenport]]||Unknown<br /> |-<br /> | [[World Tossed at Tennis, The]]||[[:category:1620|1620]]||[[:category:Middleton, Thomas|Thomas Middleton]], [[:category:Rowley, William|William Rowley]]||[[:category:Prince Charles's Men|Prince Charles's Men]]<br /> |-<br /> | [[Worse Afeared than Hurt]] [LOST]||[[:category:1598|1598]]||[[:category:Drayton, Michael|Michael Drayton]], [[:category:Dekker, Thomas|Thomas Dekker]]||[[:category:Admiral's Men|Admiral's Men]]<br /> |-<br /> | [[Wyatt, Sir Thomas, The Famous History of]]||[[:category:1602|1602]]||[[:category:Dekker, Thomas|Thomas Dekker]], [[:category:Webster, John|John Webster]], [[:category:Heywood, Thomas|Thomas Heywood]](?), [[:category:Chettle, Henry|Henry Chettle]](?)||[[:category:Queen Anne's Men|Queen Anne's Men]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;&gt;'''Browse other play titles:'''<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''[[Play Titles A, B|A, B]]''' | '''[[Play Titles C|C]]''' | '''[[Play Titles D, E|D, E]]''' | '''[[Play Titles F, G|F, G]]''' | '''[[Play Titles H, I, J, K|H, I, J, K]]''' | '''[[Play Titles L, M|L, M]]''' | '''[[Play Titles N, O, P|N, O, P]]''' | '''[[Play Titles Q, R, S|Q, R, S]]''' | '''[[Play Titles T, U, V|T, U, V]]''' | '''[[Play Titles W, X, Y, Z|W, X, Y, Z]]'''&lt;/div&gt;</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Witches_of_Lancashire,_The&diff=1216 2023-04-15T15:53:06Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>#REDIRECT [[Late_Lancashire_Witches,_The]]<br /> <br /> [[category: 1634]]<br /> [[category: Brome, Richard]]<br /> [[category: Heywood, Thomas]]<br /> [[category: King's Men]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Witches_of_Lancashire,_The&diff=1215 2023-04-15T15:52:14Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Redirected page to Late Lancashire Witches, The</p> <hr /> <div>#REDIRECT [[Late_Lancashire_Witches,_The]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Bloody_Banquet,_The&diff=1214 2023-04-06T17:12:28Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== Year (composition) ==<br /> The date of composition remains uncertain, but probably falls within the range 1608-10.<br /> <br /> [[File:Bloodiebanquettr00tdac0013.jpg|alt=Title page of 1639 Quarto.|thumb|Title page of the 1639 Quarto. Barton Collection, Boston Public Library (G.3810.11). [https://archive.org/details/bloodiebanquettr00tdac/page/n11/mode/2up Internet Archive]]] In Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino’s companion to the 2007 ''Collected Works of Middleton'' (colloquially known as ''The Oxford Middleton''), a date of 1608–9 is given (2007a: 364). Stylistic evidence is offered showing that versification and verbal parallels in the shares of both authors indicate a date of composition at the end of the first decade of the seventeenth century. As pointed out elsewhere by Taylor, whereas Dekker’s rate of rhymed lines as proportionate to lines of verse follows no clear pattern, Middleton’s rate began clearly dropping after the composition of ''A Mad World, My Masters'' in 1605: the rate in the Middleton scenes of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (21%) places that play within Middleton’s 1605–11 range (2001: 4–5). Their other evidence for dating is also taken from Taylor’s analysis, specifically: references to court drunkenness (2.1.37–41), which would have been particularly topical in light of the Jacobean court’s reputation for drunkenness, particularly after 1606 (2001: 8); references to a dearth in harvests (2.1.43–6; 2.2.2–10), which would be topical in 1608-9 due to the high corn prices of those years leading to rioting in England (2001: 8–9); and an apparent reference to pirates (2.1.70–3), which would have been particularly topical from 1609 onward, following King James I’s ‘Proclamation against Pirats’ of 8 January 1609 (2001: 10). From this convergence of evidence, 1608-9 arises as the most plausible date range for the ''Oxford Middleton'' editors.<br /> <br /> In his entry for ''The Bloody Banquet'' in ''British Drama, 1533-1642: A Catalogue'' (#1624), Martin Wiggins (in association with Catherine Richardson) pushes this slightly later, to 1610, observing that 1608–9 is ‘inherently less plausible owing to theatre closures in those years’. Wiggins notes that the reference to Lapyrus as the ‘devil in the vault’ (2.2.36) associates him with a description often applied to Guy Fawkes, suggesting that the play must at the very least post-date the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot in November 1605, but he also points out that there were a cluster of such allusions in 1610-11, including, perhaps most relevantly, in Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton’s ''The Roaring Girl'' (1611) and Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' (1611).<br /> <br /> Although Dekkerian/Middletonian recollections of the Gunpowder Plot in 1610-11 do not preclude the authors from also having had such an interest in 1608-9, the fact that the theatres were closed due to plague for the entirety of 1609 (Barroll 1991: 173, 178–86) does significantly reduce the likelihood of that being ''The Bloody Banquet''’s year of first performance. Additionally, in 1608 the theatres were open between April and June, but (aside from part of July) were closed for the rest of that year (Barroll 1991: 173); apart from the reference to Jacobean courtly drunkenness, April-July 1608 seems slightly too early for the strongest topical allusions identified above to receive a particularly powerful audience reaction (as the public response to corn prices was only just beginning, and James’s ‘Proclamation against Pirats’ did not come about until the start of 1609). Consequently, Wiggins’s suggestion of a 1610 date does seem persuasive.<br /> <br /> However, Wiggins’s protestations regarding the 1608–9 theatre closures are only relevant in terms of performance, not composition. With the theatres closed, it seems unlikely that Middleton and Dekker simply ceased writing, as they had to be ready for when the theatres were able to reopen.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, Dekker took a noticeable interest in the corn protests of 1609, as shown through his prose pamphlet ''Work for Armourers'', published in that year. Dekker takes aim at the ‘rich Farmers, Land-lords, and Graziers’ who ‘transport your corne, butter, cheese and all needfull commoditiess into other countries, of purpose to famish and impouerish these hated whining wretches’ by causing corn prices to increase ‘from foure to ten shillings a bushell,’ and then again ‘from ten to twelue shillings’ (F2v). As Taylor notes, the reference in ''The Bloody Banquet'' to ‘an angel a bushel’ (2.1.44–5) reflects Dekker’s protests about bushels increasing ‘from ten to twelue shillings’ in ''Work for Armourors''; an angel was a gold coin equalling eleven shillings (2001: 9). ''The Bloody Banquet'' might therefore also reflect Dekker’s concern with corn prices in 1609.<br /> <br /> As such, due to Dekker’s interest in the corn protests of this year, combined with the play’s reference to pirating, 1609 seems a good ‘best guess’ for composition of ''The Bloody Banquet'', even if first performance may have had to have been delayed until 1610.<br /> <br /> == Year (first printed) ==<br /> 1639. Quarto edition printed by Thomas Cotes.<br /> <br /> == Reprints (until 1700) ==<br /> None.<br /> <br /> == Authors (title-page ascription, including reprints) ==<br /> T. D.<br /> <br /> == Authors proposed (attribution scholarship) ==<br /> Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton, plus an unidentified adapter.<br /> <br /> ''The Bloody Banquet'' consists of 16 scenes, plus an Induction. The division of labour between the play’s two main collaborators and the subsequent adapter was likely as follows:<br /> <br /> Dekker: 1.1–3, 2.1–2, 2.4, and 5.1.110sd2–5.1.248sd1 (from the stage direction ‘''Thunder and lightning. A blazing star appears''’ to the play’s final ‘''Exeunt omnes''’).<br /> <br /> Middleton: 1.4, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, all of Act 4, and 5.1.1–110sd (from the beginning of the scene to the stage direction indicating that Zenarchus ‘''dies''’).<br /> <br /> Adapter: Induction, 2.5 (this scene might have been added to replace material cut from the Lapyrus plot; see below), possibly 3.2 (as this scene cannot confidently be attributed to either Middleton or Dekker), and other more minor textual alterations.<br /> <br /> == Genre ==<br /> Tragedy.<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> William Warner’s ''Pan His Syrinx'' (1584; second edition 1597). The playwrights based the play on 4 of the 7 stories featured in Warner’s book.<br /> <br /> Based on the surviving passages from the play that were included in the book ''England’s Parnassus'' in 1600, it appears that Dekker, Henry Chettle, and John Day’s earlier play ''Cupid and Psyche'' (June 1600; now lost) also served as a narrative influence (Wiggins #1247).<br /> <br /> == Auspices ==<br /> <br /> Original company undetermined. Later acquired by the King and Queen’s Young Company (aka ‘Beeston’s Boys’).<br /> <br /> == External Documentary Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Payments ===<br /> No extant records.<br /> <br /> === Stationers’ Register ===<br /> Not entered.<br /> <br /> === Title-page ascription(s) ===<br /> The ‘T. D.’ of the 1639 quarto is the only contemporary title page attribution.<br /> <br /> It is worth noting, however, that other plays by or partly by Thomas Dekker were similarly published bearing the initials ‘T. D.’, including Dekker and Middleton’s ''1 Honest Whore'' (1604).<br /> <br /> The title page of ''The Bloody Banquet'' also features a Latin motto (‘Hector adest secumque Deos in prœlia ducit’ [Then Hector appeared, bringing the gods to do battle with him] / ‘Nos hæc novimus esse nihil’ [We know these things to be nothing]); the first line is taken from Ovid’s ''Metamorphoses'', the second from Martial’s ''Epigrams''. Such Latin tags more generally are a recurring feature on the title pages of Dekker’s works, but are not unique to Dekker, and so are most suggestive in combination with other evidence for Dekker’s authorship. Interestingly, however, ‘Nos hæc novimus esse nihil’ is also quoted in the 1602 quarto of Dekker’s ''Satiromastix'' (1601), under the heading ‘Ad Detractorem’ (A2r).<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (external) ===<br /> Dekker and Middleton are known to have worked as close collaborators at many other times during their respective careers, so their co-authorship of ''The Bloody Banquet'' is not a surprising attribution. Specifically, Dekker and Middleton are recognised as the co-authors of the plays ''1 Honest Whore'' (1604), ''The Roaring Girl'' (1611), and ''The Spanish Gypsy'' (1623, with William Rowley and John Ford); the lost play ''Two Shapes'' (1602, with Michael Drayton, Anthony Munday, and John Webster); the prose works ''News from Gravesend: Sent to Nobody'' and ''The Meeting of Gallants at an Ordinary, or: The Walk in Paul’s'' (both 1604); and the multi-authored royal pageant ''The Magnificent Entertainment'' (1604), so their writing partnership is well established. When prose works and lost plays are included in the count, the number of works produced by the Dekker-Middleton partnership (seven) may well be greater than that produced by the more famous Middleton-Rowley partnership (six). (It should be noted that due to the possibility of Middleton’s part-authorship of Dekker, Ford, and Rowley’s ''The Witch of Edmonton'' (1621) the number of Middleton-Rowley collaborations could be as high as seven; however, in this case the Dekker-Middleton number would in turn rise to eight.)<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (external) ===<br /> The play was listed among 45 plays owned by William Beeston and his company (Beeston’s Boys), performing at the Cockpit, in an order issued by Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke (the Lord Chamberlain) on 10 August 1639, specifying works which other companies should not ‘intermedle wth or Act’ (Munro 2012: 164). If Beeston’s Boys was not the original company – which seems certain given that they were not formed until 1637 (Middleton died in 1627; Dekker died in 1632) – then this suggests ownership of the play must have been transferred to them from elsewhere, before mid-1639.<br /> <br /> The known history of Beeston’s Boys and their repertory suggests that they would likely have acquired the play from either the Duke of York’s (later Prince Charles’s) Men, Queen Anne’s Men, or the Children of the Queen’s Revels, all companies with whom Dekker and/or Middleton are known to have worked.<br /> <br /> === Allusions ===<br /> 13 extracts from ''The Bloody Banquet'' were included in John Cotgrave’s ''Wit’s Treasury'' in 1655, although Cotgrave never named the plays he quoted, nor the author(s) he associated with them.<br /> <br /> === Print and MS attributions ===<br /> <br /> The title page ascription to ‘T. D.’ was repeated in the play-lists of Richard Rogers and William Ley (1656) and Francis Kirkman (1661 and 1671).<br /> <br /> W. W. Greg (quoted in Schoenbaum 1961: vi) pointed out that as Kirkman is known to have been a friend of Beeston, he may have acquired information regarding the play’s authorship directly from him; however, as the 1639 quarto was already in print by the time Kirkman compiled his 1661 list, he just as likely copied the initials from that edition’s title page.<br /> <br /> Edward Archer’s play-list, appended to his copy of the 1656 quarto edition of Middleton, Rowley, and Thomas Heywood’s ''The Old Law'' (1619), attributes the play to one ‘Thomas Barker’, although this is an error Archer makes in place of Dekker’s name elsewhere in the same list, when recording Dekker’s known solo-authored plays ''Old Fortunatus'' (1599) and ''Match Me in London'' (1621).<br /> <br /> Anthony à Wood, in his c.1675–80 catalogue of the contents of Ralph Sheldon’s library, unequivocally attributes the play to Dekker (see Baugh 1918).<br /> <br /> (All of this evidence suggests Dekker as the play’s most likely author. Yet nowhere in the external evidence is there any indication of his having worked with a collaborator. However, as shown below, this is indicated by a variety of internal evidence, which has largely been identified and set forth in Lake 1975, Jackson 1979, Jackson 1998, Taylor 2000, and Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a.)<br /> <br /> == Internal Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Palaeographical evidence ===<br /> N/A.<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (internal) ===<br /> Evidence for the presence of an adapter in 2.5 is that this scene is completely unlike anything else Dekker or Middleton produced during their respective careers, most obviously with regard to the opening Chorus. This Chorus seeks to cram a lot of information into just 15 lines, and may be a rushed attempt by the adapter to replace plot content that had been removed by their cuts. In comparison, Dekker preferred to write much longer descriptive choruses (such as the 40-line Chorus that begins Act 2 of ''Old Fortunatus''), whereas Middleton more commonly crafted a distinct personality/character for his narrators (as in Raynulph’s chorus that concludes scene 2.2 of ''Hengist, King of Kent'' (1620)), a personality which is not provided in this ''Bloody Banquet'' Chorus.<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (internal) ===<br /> As the play calls for the use of props resembling severed human limbs, this could potentially indicate that the play previously belonged to Queen Anne’s Men during their affiliation with the Red Bull Theatre, as the same kind of prop also appears in Heywood’s ''The Golden Age'', which they also owned, and which was originally performed at the Red Bull in 1611 (i.e. just a year or two after ''The Bloody Banquet'' was likely first performed): ‘''A banquet brought in, with the limbs of a man in the service''’ (Gaines and Ioppolo 2023: iii, 2.2.34.1). However, in the absence of firmer evidence for ownership, this remains speculation.<br /> <br /> Internal evidence that ''The Bloody Banquet'' underwent a process of later adaptation is characteristic of several other plays acquired by Beeston’s company and included in the 1639 order. Specifically, this internal evidence for adaptation could indicate that ownership of ''The Bloody Banquet'' passed from its original company through Queen Henrietta’s Men (formed in 1625), before being acquired by Beeston’s Boys. Indeed, the 1639 Beeston’s Boys order includes 4 other plays known to have been adapted for performance by Queen Henrietta’s Men:<br /> <br /> * Heywood’s ''The Rape of Lucrece'' (1607-8), revised with the addition of new songs and performed by Queen Henrietta’s Men on 30 July 1628.<br /> * Rowley’s ''Cupid’s Vagaries'' (c.1611, now lost), for which Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert was paid a licencing fee of £1 by Christopher Beeston on 15 August 1633. Christopher Beeston was responsible for the formation of Queen Henrietta’s Men, so this payment is a probable indicator of ownership by them.<br /> * George Chapman’s ''Chabot, Admiral of France'' (c.1612), licensed by Herbert on 29 April 1635, and listed as performed by Queen Henrietta’s Men on the title page of the 1639 quarto (which, like the 1639 ''Bloody Banquet'' quarto, was printed by Thomas Cotes).<br /> * John Fletcher’s ''The Night Walker'' (c.1615), a version of which was licenced by Herbert for performance by Queen Henrietta’s Men on 11 May 1633.<br /> <br /> Christopher Beeston, manager of Queen Henrietta’s Men, was the father of William Beeston, manager of Beeston’s Boys, and both companies performed at the Cockpit, so the internal evidence for adaptation in ''The Bloody Banquet'' may well lead us to consider Queen Henrietta’s Men as possible previous owners of the play. Furthermore, of the known companies related to these 4 plays, ''The Rape of Lucrece'' was originally a property of Queen Anne’s Men and ''Cupid’s Vagaries'' was originally a property of the Duke of York’s Men, both of which fit the known acquisition practices of Beeston’s Boys.<br /> <br /> Of the 4 plays known to have been acquired by Beeston’s Boys from Queen Henrietta’s Men, 3 (''Cupid’s Vagaries''; ''Chabot, Admiral of France''; ''The Night Walker'') are known through both external and internal evidence to have been adapted by James Shirley. Given the possible association with Queen Henrietta’s Men, it is tempting to consider Shirley a candidate for the otherwise unidentified adapter of ''The Bloody Banquet'', although this supposition will require further investigation.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, in 1640 two playwrights associated with Beeston, Richard Brome and Thomas Nabbes, separately complained about the abridgement of their texts for performance (Bentley 1971: 236-7). This indicates an apparent preference for shorter plays on the part of Beeston, and Beeston’s willingness to commission cuts to pre-existing texts might explain further why the surviving version of ''The Bloody Banquet'' is shorter than any other play by Dekker or Middleton (except, in Middleton’s case, ''The Nice Valour'' (1622), although this work was published more than two decades after its original performances, and is itself likely a text that has undergone adaptation).<br /> <br /> It is worth noting here that the quarto text’s use of act/scene divisions that are clumsily imposed upon the text after 5.1.110 (creating a false scene break into 5.1 and a non-existent ‘5.2’; see below) suggests that the copy of the play that lies behind the quarto may have had its act/scene divisions imposed onto it sometime after its original performance. Indeed, if the play was originally performed at an outdoor theatre (like the Red Bull) it would not have used act divisions (see Taylor 1993), but these would have been added into the play when it transferred to an indoor theatre (the Cockpit). The problematic split in the middle of 5.1 could be evidence of later act/scene divisions added into the text as part of a textual restructuring undertaken following the larger process of adaptation. Claire Kimball and Charlene V. Smith have pointed out that the encounter between Tymethes and the Young Queen in 4.3 benefits from the application of pitch darkness that would have been made possible by performance in an indoor playhouse (Kimball and Smith 2024: forthcoming), in similar vein to a ‘dark scene’ in Webster’s Blackfriars play ''The Duchess of Malfi'' (1614); if so, it might indicate that something in the dramaturgy of this scene might also have been altered by the play’s adapter, if the play were transported from an outdoor playhouse to the indoor Cockpit.<br /> <br /> === Metrical evidence ===<br /> In scenes attributed to Dekker, 6 out of 174 rhymes are feminine (3.4%). In scenes attributed to Middleton, 28 out of 208 are feminine (13.5%). The significant split in the frequency of feminine rhymes between these differently attributed scenes provides strong evidence that they are indeed the product of two different hands. Furthermore, these rates seem appropriately Dekkerian and Middletonian respectively (Taylor 2000: 219).<br /> <br /> 1.3.8–9 (‘Stop her mouth first. Soldiers must have their sport. / ’Tis dearly earned; they venture their blood for’t’), attributed to Dekker, employs the same ‘sport/for[’]t’ rhyme as is also found in both Dekker’s ''2 Honest Whore'' (1605) at 4.1.311–12 (‘Common? as spotted Leopards, whom for sport / Men hunt, to get the flesh, but care not for’t’) and ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' at 2.1.121–3 (‘S’bloud if we tosse not them, hang’s agen: a fort / We ha built without, and mand it, this was the sport’). Additionally the ‘ill[s]/pill[s]’ rhyme of 1.3.5–6 (‘Earth, stretch thy throat: take down this bitter pill, / Loathing the hateful taste of his own ill’) also features in Dekker’s ''2 Honest Whore'' at 5.2.488–9 (‘all your Ills / Are cleare purged from you by his working pills’).<br /> <br /> === Chronological evidence ===<br /> All act and scene divisions in the surviving version of the play are presented logically in sequence, apart from one false scene division in the Cotes quarto that occurs after what is given as line 5.1.110 in the ''Oxford Middleton'' edition. This may be suggestive of two hands working in collaboration in the manuscript that was being consulted by the printer, with the change in author being misinterpreted as a division between 5.1 and an unintended ‘5.2’. 5.1 seems to be the only ‘co-authored’ scene in the play (at least, of the scenes that can be confidently attributed).<br /> <br /> The difficulty in attributing 3.2 to either Dekker or Middleton may support evidence of adaptation, when the position of 3.2 between 3.1 and 3.3 is considered. If an adapter had removed material from the Lapyrus plot that fell between 3.1 and 3.3, they would have to have replaced that material with a new scene, so as not to violate the so-called ‘law of re-entry’. Furthermore, as this scene stylistically cannot have been by Middleton, if it were by Dekker it would be his only contribution to the Tymethes plot in the entire play (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a: 365).<br /> <br /> === Vocabulary ===<br /> Many of Middleton’s favoured contractions are present in this play and constitute suggestive evidence for his part-authorship. One rare occurrence in the quarto text is ''Sh’had'' (1.1.75); this occurs 6 times in the Middleton canon, but is rare elsewhere. ''I’m'' is used 13 times, ''I’d'' twice, ''ne’er'' 18 times, ''e’en'' thrice, and ''y’'' 6 times, and ''’t'' contractions appear 34 times. Furthermore, ''h’as'' and ''’tad'' each appear once (Jackson 1979: 114–15). The abbreviation ''’em'', often used by Middleton, is not common in the text of ''The Bloody Banquet'', but does appear in the Middleton-ascribed scenes 1.4, 3.3, and 4.3. ''T’abuse'' appears at 5.1.27 and five other times in Middleton (''The Widow'' (1615), 1.1.192; ''The Witch'' (1616), 4.2.101 and 5.1.66; ''Hengist, King of Kent'', 4.2.27; and ''The Nice Valour'', 5.3.126), but never in Dekker.<br /> <br /> === Oaths and interjections ===<br /> A possibly Dekkerian oath, ''s’nails'' (meaning ‘by God’s nails), occurs at 2.2.27, but many other dramatists are known to have used this oath, meaning it does not constitute strong evidence for Dekker’s presence on its own (Lake: 238).<br /> <br /> At 1.4.127 and 2.3.28, we find the oath ''mass'', one Middleton is known to have been fond of using. At 1.4.149 and 2.3.55 we find ''s’foote'', another Middletonian oath, and at 1.4.176 ''hum'', an exclamation very uncommon outside of Middleton.<br /> <br /> Most tellingly in the case of oaths and other expletives, of the 39 expletives known to be more common to Middleton that to any other early modern playwright, 19 appear in ''The Bloody Banquet''; this high rate is only surpassed by one other play, Nathan Field’s ''Amends for Ladies'' (1610), although it is worth noting that this play is itself 22% longer than the extant version of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Taylor 2000: 207). The Middletonian expletives that appear in ''The Bloody Banquet'' are ''troth'', ''by this light'', ''i’faith'', ''faith'', ''by my faith'', ''mass'', ''by my troth'', ''by the mass'', ''s’foot'', ''puh'', ''why le/law you now'', ''pish'', ''hist'', ''whist'', ''death'', ''pox on'', ''pox of'', ''prithee'', ''how now'', ''I warrant'', ''hum'', and ''and by this hand''.<br /> <br /> Of these, Jackson observed that the play’s author made use of ''puh'' and ''why law you now'' 11 times, and noted that ''la'' or ''law'' is very common in Jacobean drama, but immediately preceding it with ''why'' or following it with ''you'' is much less common, and ''why la''[''w''] ''you'' is a very rare formulation, except as an indicator of Middleton’s authorship. Jackson found in 4,000 plays only 5 with both ''puh'' and ''why la''[''w''] ''you'': ''The Bloody Banquet'' and 4 established Middleton plays, these being ''The Puritan'' (1606), ''1 Honest Whore'', ''No Wit, No Help Like a Woman’s'' (1611), and ''Wit at Several Weapons'' (1613). Furthermore, ''my troth'' can only be found in 7 plays: ''The Phoenix'' (1604), ''Michaelmas Term'' (1604), ''A Trick to Catch the Old One'' (1605), ''A Mad World, My Masters'' (1605), ''The Puritan'', ''Wit at Several Weapons'', and Shakespeare’s ''Coriolanus'' (1608), the latter being the only non-Middleton example (1998: 4).<br /> <br /> Additionally, ''a murren on you'' or ''a murren on them'' is an unusual oath formulation in the extant corpus of early modern drama, but it also appears in Middleton’s ''Hengist, King of Kent'' at 5.1.263. Similarly, ''a murren meet ’em'' appears in ''A Mad World, My Masters'' at 2.6.77, and ''The Revenger’s Tragedy'' (1606) at 3.6.84 (Holdsworth 1994). Dekker, however, does use ''how a murrain'' in ''The Shoemaker’s Holiday'' (1599) at 4.2.48 (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007b: 366), although this resembles the Middleton parallels markedly less.<br /> <br /> The oath ''s’light'' also appears in Middleton’s ''The Widow'' and ''Your Five Gallants'' (1607).<br /> <br /> === Linguistic evidence ===<br /> One stand-out piece of evidence regarding Middletonian spellings has been pointed out in Taylor and Lavagnino, namely that ‘trechery’ (4.3.240) and ‘trecher’ (4.3.257) parallel Middleton’s spellings of these words in his 1624 play ''A Game at Chess'' (at 4.4.14 and 4.2.8 respectively) (2007a: 367).<br /> <br /> At 1.1.45, we find the same kind of alliteration between '''‘'''devil’ and ‘duke[dom]’ as can also be found to occur in ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''. Compare ''The Bloody Banquet''’s ‘The devil! The dukedom, the kingdom, Lydia’ with ''The Revenger’s Tragedy’s'' ‘Ay, to the devil. – To th’ Duke, by my faith’ (2.1.202).<br /> <br /> === Stage directions ===<br /> In similar fashion to the conclusion of ''The Bloody Banquet'', an ecclesiastically-disguised character (and more specifically, a ‘good’ character) also appears in the final scenes of Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' and ''The Noble Spanish Soldier'' (1622), and Dekker and Middleton’s ''1 Honest Whore''. Crucially, this is not a plot detail found in the Warner source material, and so was evidently an invention of the dramatist(s). In this light, its incorporation into the play’s narrative seems remarkably Dekkerian.<br /> <br /> The speech prefix ‘Omn.’ (at 1.1.2) is very rare in Middleton, appearing only once each in ''Hengist, King of Kent'', ''Women Beware Women'' (1621), and ''The Nice Valour''. However, ‘Omnes’ as a speech prefix is common in Dekker, appearing multiple times in several of his solo-authored plays: ''Blurt, Master Constable'' (1601); ''Satiromastix''; ''2 Honest Whore''; ''The Whore of Babylon'' (1606); and ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It''.<br /> <br /> The stage direction that opens 3.3, ‘''Enter Roxano leading Tymethes. Mazeres meets them''’ (3.3.0sd) bears a telling Middletonian characteristic, specifically the formulation ‘''Enter A meeting B''’ or ''Enter A. B meets A''’, a style of entry direction that is unique to Middleton. The fact that this entry direction describes ‘''Roxano leading Tymethes''’ along what Tymethes calls a ‘blind pilgrimage’ (3.3.1) also resembles the opening stage direction of 3.1 of Middleton’s ''The'' ''Witch'': ‘''Enter Duchess, leading Almachildes blindfold''’ (3.1.0sd).<br /> <br /> The use of a ‘''blazing star''’ in the stage direction at 5.1.110sd2 resembles Dekker’s use of such imagery in ''2 Honest Whore'' 4.2.52, but this image appears frequently in the works of Middleton, most famously in ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''.<br /> <br /> Another interesting feature that may be indicative of Middletonian dramaturgy is the application of two banqueting scenes (3.3 and 5.1), the latter of which is a more tragic inversion of the former (see Meads: 154–7). Such a symbolic pairing of banqueting scenes is something that dramaturgically interested Middleton (see Green: 190–1).<br /> <br /> === Verbal parallels ===<br /> A signifier of Dekker’s presence can be found early in the Cotes quarto, when the list of characters is described as a ‘Drammatis Personae’ (A1&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;) rather than i.e. ‘Names of the Persons’. This is a description common to Dekker’s works or works involving Dekker, and can be found in quartos of ''Satiromastix'', ''The Whore of Babylon'', ''The Roaring Girl'', ''The Noble Spanish Soldier'', ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' (1623), and ''The Spanish Gypsy'' (Lake: 239).<br /> <br /> There are many verbal parallels in the play’s text that can be linked to other works by Dekker. The ‘venture their blood’ imagery of 1.3.9 recalls ''The Whore of Babylon'' 5.6.19 (‘venture our owne bloud’). The connection between the words ‘dear’ and ‘earn’ (‘’Tis dearly earned’, 1.3.9) also appears in ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' 2.1.173 (‘hee that dearest earnes his bread’) and 4.4.11 (‘At how deere rate the careles world does earne’). Lapyrus’s line at 1.3.5-6 (‘Earth, stretch thy throat: take down this bitter pill, / Loathing the hateful taste of his own ill’) also recalls the language of Dekker: in ''The Whore of Babylon'' 5.4.12-13 we find ‘fifty Canons throats, / Stretcht wide’; ‘take […] this bitter pill’ recalls ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' 2.1.87-8 (‘Even in this bitter pill (for me) so you / Would play but my Phisician, and say, take it’); and ‘loath[ing] […] taste’ recalls ''Old Fortunatus'' 4.1.140 (‘thy gifts I loath to tast’). Of this last point of comparison, a juxtaposition between ‘taste’ and ‘hate’ within 4 words also appears in ''2 Honest Whore'' 1.2.159 (‘he taught her first to taste poison; I hate her for her selfe’).<br /> <br /> Another interesting point is the speech at 1.3.19-23, with its focus on prayers for soldiers, a concern also expressed by Dekker in his ''Four Birds of Noah’s Ark'' (1609).<br /> <br /> Similar Middleton parallels in the play include ‘Right oracle!’ (1.4.25), which recalls ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''’s ‘’Tis oracle’ (4.1.89), where in both senses ‘oracle’ means ‘absolute truth’, and ‘Heart of ill fortune!’ (4.1.45), which strikingly resembles ‘Heart, of chance’ (6.4) in ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' (1605).<br /> <br /> ‘I never knew the force of a desire / Until this minute’ (1.4.42) resembles ''The Revenger’s Tragedy'' 2.2.34-5 (‘I never thought their sex had been a wonder / Until this minute’), ''Wit at Several Weapons'' 1.1.210 (‘I never beheld comeliness till this minute’), and ''A Mad World, My Masters'' 4.5.17-19 (‘I ne’er knew / At which end to begin to affect a woman / Till this bewitching minute’).<br /> <br /> ‘Favours are grown to custom ’twixt ’em both: / Letters, close banquets, whisperings, private meetings’ (4.1.32) recalls what Taylor calls Middleton’s fondness for ‘catalogues of debauchery’ (Taylor 2001: 209), as in ''A Trick to Catch the Old One'' 5.2.172-3 (‘All secret friends and private meetings, / Close-borne letters and bawds’ greetings’).<br /> <br /> === Image clusters ===<br /> <br /> The line ‘As your son and heir at his father’s funeral’ (1.4.2) recalls Middleton’s fondness for jokes surrounding imagery of a father’s death, which are also made use of in ''The Puritan'' 1.1 and ''The'' ''Revenger’s Tragedy'' 4.2.<br /> <br /> Middleton is also known to have identified the imagery of a padlock as something distinctly Italian, as at 1.4.29. See, for example, ''A Mad World, My Masters'' 1.2.22–3 (‘kept by the Italian under lock and key’) and ''A Chaste Maid in Cheapside'' (1613) 4.4.4–5 (‘padlocks, father; the Venetian uses it’).<br /> <br /> Holdsworth (1994) has drawn attention to the rareness of the image of a person in wax at 2.1.62–3 (‘my young prodigal first in wax’), but which is similar to imagery found in ''Michaelmas Term'' 4.1.45–6 and ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' 1.51–2. Dekker does use a comparable image in ''Lantern and Candlelight'' (1608), but unlike in the Middleton parallels does not use the specific phrase ‘in wax’ (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a: 367).<br /> <br /> The reference to a ‘sea-wolf’ (i.e. a pirate) at 2.1.68 connects the play to all three of the Middleton plays that can be dated to 1611, just a year or two after the composition of ''The Bloody Banquet'': piratical imagery appears in ''The Roaring Girl'', ''The Lady’s Tragedy'', and ''No Wit, No Help Like a Woman’s''.<br /> <br /> Imagery connecting the ideas of sport and soldiers (‘Soldiers must have their sport’, 1.3.8) also appears in Dekker’s ''The Whore of Babylon'' 4.3.26 (‘tis the souldiers sport’) and ''2 Honest Whore'' 4.1.286–8 (‘Soldiers fight for them […] Thus (for sport sake)’).<br /> <br /> The Tyrant’s use of a metaphor about bees at 1.1.26–7 (‘so unload victory’s honey thighs / To let drones feed’) recalls a similar bee-based metaphor used by a villainous character in Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' (1.3.162–8).<br /> <br /> Another potential Dekkerian image is the combination of widows and orphans as an emotional image, as can be found at 2.1.5 (‘devour a widow and three orphans’), and which is also used by Dekker in ''The Raven’s Almanac'' (1609).<br /> <br /> In Dekker, Chettle, and William Haughton’s ''Patient Grissel'' (1599), Dekker writes a passage in which Grissel is prevented from breastfeeding her two new-born babies (4.1.123–4), which may be recalled in the description of the Old Queen and her famished infants (2.2.9–10).<br /> <br /> Finally, the use of wolf imagery in a discussion about strength versus weakness (2.1.74–6) can also be found in Dekker’s ''Match Me in London'' at 4.1.58–66.<br /> <br /> == Critical Debate ==<br /> E. H. C. Oliphant was the first to propose Dekker and Middleton as co-authors of the play, in a ''Times Literary Supplement'' article of 1925, and his argument was subsequently endorsed by Gerald J. Eberle in 1948 (725). Oliphant’s analysis was not widely accepted at first, however, despite the fact that, to quote Taylor, Oliphant ‘was the key figure in redefining the Middleton canon in the twentieth century, and almost all of his attributions have been accepted and confirmed by subsequent scholars’ (Taylor 2000: 198). Indeed, in the 1950s Samuel Schoenbaum dismissed Oliphant as having ‘failed to make a convincing case’ regarding the play’s authorship (1955: 226), and Gerald Eades Bentley was even more scornful, stating that ‘The case for Dekker and Middleton is based mostly on parallels and repeated words and phrases – the flimsiest kind of “evidence”’ (1956: iii, 282–3). David J. Lake (1975: 239–41) and MacDonald P. Jackson (1979: 113–16), however, did take the Dekker-Middleton attribution more seriously, and although at the time they considered it far from proven – to quote Jackson’s later words on the matter, at the time they were both ‘non-committal’ (1998: 4) – most scholars now accept ''The Bloody Banquet'' to be a collaborative work by Dekker and Middleton; Jackson later substantially revised his opinion, stating that ‘It is clear to me now that those links are so strong as to constitute virtual proof that Oliphant was right’ (1998: 4). In 2007 the play was included as part of the ''Oxford Middleton'', in a text edited by Taylor and Julia Gasper (2007b: 637-69), thus enshrining the play in print as part of the Middleton canon for the very first time; the play had previously been excluded from the Middleton collected works of Alexander Dyce (1840) and A. H. Bullen (1885–7), both of which were published long before Oliphant’s analysis.<br /> <br /> Other possible alternative authors have been proposed over the years, although each has seen far less scholarly acceptance. One alternative candidate, promoted by Frederick Gard Fleay, was Thomas Drue (or Drew), the only other known playwright from the time to have the initials ‘T. D.’ (1891: i, 162). However, both Lake and Jackson ruled Drue out in their stylistic analyses of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Lake: 233–4; Jackson 1979: 113–16). Drue is the author of only one other acknowledged play that survives to this day, ''The Duchess of Suffolk'' (1624), so an attribution of ''The Bloody Banquet'' to Drue could be argued to bring with it little critical enlightenment.<br /> <br /> Additionally, David Erskine Baker suggested Robert Davenport as the play’s author on the basis that ''The Bloody Banquet'' is listed after several Davenport plays in Herbert‘s list, the argument thus being that the ‘T. D.’ on the 1639 title page was a mistake for ‘R. D.’ (1812: 61). However, this argument is no more persuasive than someone in favour of Middleton’s authorship saying, conversely, that ‘T. D.’ is a mistake for ‘T. M.’ The Davenport theory was nevertheless later revived by James G. McManaway, although he largely based this argument on the fact that the ‘Hector adest secumque Deos in prœlia ducit’ motto on ''The Bloody Banquet''’s title page also appears on the manuscript of the anonymous play ''Dick of Devonshire'' (1626-7), which McManaway (on little evidence) also attributed to Davenport (1946: 34). McManaway claimed to have found ‘considerable internal evidence that [''The Bloody Banquet''] and ''Dick of Devonshire'' are from the same pen, and that the writer was indeed Robert Davenport’ (35), but he did not proceed to provide this supposed evidence. Davenport’s authorship of ''Dick of Devonshire'' is no longer supported in present-day scholarship; indeed, Heywood is believed to be a much more likely candidate (see e.g. Long 2014; Greatley-Hirsch, Pangallo, and White 2024).<br /> <br /> == Critical Commentary ==<br /> The authorship of 3.2 is uncertain. The scene displays Dekker’s fondness for ''hath'' over ''has'', and this form of the word occurs twice in this short scene; however, ''hath'' was a popular form used by many other dramatists, so is not necessarily a strong indicator of Dekker’s authorship specifically, and could just as easily be the preference of the play’s adapter. In the absence of firmer evidence, the author of 3.2 remains undetermined. However, as with many surviving early modern plays published many years after their original composition and performance, the presence of an adapting hand in ''The Bloody Banquet'' seems incredibly likely.<br /> <br /> Given its relatively short length, it is generally agreed that the Cotes quarto reproduces an abridged text of the play, something we know was a theatrical practice undertaken by Beeston’s company (see above). Schoenbaum (1961: vii-viii) observed numerous curiosities in the text that are at the very least suggestive of significant cutting and other forms of alteration. These include (I hear indicate cut material using &lt; &gt;):<br /> <br /> * A line seemingly lost at Induction.Chorus.11 (‘This Lord Lapyrus entertained and welcomed / By &lt; &gt;, / But chiefly by the fair Eurymone’).<br /> * Further lines possibly removed from 1.1.154–5 (‘Or if for larger bounties &lt; &gt; I was mad’), 4.3.106-8 (‘Had any warning fast’ned on thy senses, / &lt; &gt; / Rash, unadvisèd youth, whom my soul weeps for’), and 5.1.13–16 (although in this case such a cut is not noted in the ''Oxford Middleton'' text).<br /> * An incomplete line at 1.4.29 (‘Italian padlocks, &lt; &gt;’).<br /> * Sextorio and Lodovicus being named as such in the ‘Drammatis Personae’ and in 1.1, but then becoming ‘Sertorio’ and ‘Lodovico’ in Acts 4 and 5.<br /> * Armatrites being named as such in speech prefixes throughout 1.1, but becoming simply ‘Tyrant’ from then on.<br /> * The Young Queen claiming ‘I speak strange words against my fantasy’ at 1.4.66, despite having done no such thing.<br /> * The Old King of Lydia saying ‘On thee, ''Lapyrus'', and thy treacheries, fall / The heavy burden of an old man’s curse’ at 1.1.69–70, and calling him an ‘Inhuman monster!’ at 2.4.3, but then easily forgiving him just 9 lines later (‘Set all our hands to help him. – Come, good man’, 2.4.12) with no clear indication as to why. This differs substantially from the Warner source material.<br /> * The King of Lycia, Zantippus, and Eurymone being afforded noteworthy status by being listed in the play’s ‘Drammatis Personae’, but only appearing in the dumb show of the Induction.<br /> <br /> Most striking, however, is a change in the play’s narratives after Act 2. As Schoenbaum noted, in Acts 1 and 2 the playwrights establish the story of the Young Queen, Tymethes, and the Tyrant in 3 scenes, while 5 are devoted to the tale of the Old Queen, Lapyrus, and the King. After this, the latter story is not picked up again until the final scene, when they appear disguised as pilgrims. It is never explained why they are dressed in such a fashion or from where they acquired such garments, suggesting a significant amount of subplot material may have been removed from the play by an adapting hand. Acts 2, 3, and 5 are also markedly short in comparison with Acts 1 and 4, which may be further evidence of substantial cutting; if the respective lengths of Acts 1 and 4 were replicated throughout the play, ''The Bloody Banquet'' would be of an average length for drama of the period, so the play’s brevity is seemingly a consequence of the unusual shortness of Acts 2, 3, and 5. It thus appears that the adapter considered material from the Lapyrus plot the most worthy of being dispensed with.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, given the amount of scenes focusing on the Lapyrus plot in Act 1 compared with amount of scenes dedicated to the Tymethes plot in the same Act, it is possible that the importance of the plots has been reversed in the extant version of the play. Whereas now the Lapyrus plot appears to be something of a subplot, in the original version the story of Lapyrus might have been the majority focus, with the Tymethes plot taking subplot status. While the play’s title, ''The Bloody Banquet'', clearly relates to the Tymethes plot, this was not necessarily the title of the play under which it was originally performed in c.1609 (and in any case, plays did sometimes take their titles from their subplot).<br /> <br /> == Further Thoughts ==<br /> <br /> == Works Cited ==<br /> Barroll, Leeds (1991), ''Politics, Plague, and Shakespeare’s Theater: The Stuart Years'' (New York: Cornell University Press).<br /> <br /> Baker, David Erskine (1812), ''Biographia Dramatica, or, A Companion to the Playhouse'' (Dublin: T. Henshall).<br /> <br /> Baugh, Albert C. (1918), ‘A Seventeenth Century Play-List’, ''Modern Language Review'' (13), 401–11.<br /> <br /> Bentley, Gerald Eades (1956), ''The Jacobean and Caroline Stage'', vol. iii (Oxford: Clarendon Press).<br /> <br /> Bentley, Gerald Eades (1971), ''The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s Time'' (Princeton: Princeton University Press).<br /> <br /> Bowers, Fredson, ed. (1953–61), ''The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker'', 4 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). All quotations from the works of Dekker are from this edition.<br /> <br /> Eberle, Gerald J. (1948), ‘Dekker’s Part in ''The Family of Love''’, in James G. McManaway, Giles E. Dawson, and Edwin E. Willoughby (eds), ''Joseph Quincy Adams Memorial Studies'' (Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library), 723–38.<br /> <br /> Fleay, Frederick Gard (1891), ''A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama 1559–1642'', vol. i (London: Reeves and Turner).<br /> <br /> Gaines, Barry, and Grace Ioppolo, eds (2023), ''The Collected Works of Thomas Heywood'', vol. iii (Oxford: Oxford University Press).<br /> <br /> Greatley-Hirsch, Brett, Matteo Pangallo, and Rachel White (2024), ‘“Text up his name”: The Authorship of the Manuscript Play ''Dick of Devonshire’, Studies in Philology'' (121), forthcoming.<br /> <br /> Green, William David (2020), ‘“Such Violent Hands”: The Theme of Cannibalism and the Implications of Authorship in the 1623 Text of ''Titus Andronicus''’, ''Exchanges'' (7), 182–99.<br /> <br /> Holdsworth, R. V. (1994), ‘A Middleton Oath in ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' and ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Notes and Queries'' (239), 70.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. (1998), ‘Editing, Attribution Studies, and “Literature Online”: A New Resource for Research in Renaissance Drama’, ''Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama'' (37), 1–15.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. (1979), ''Studies in Attribution: Middleton and Shakespeare'' (Salzburg: Universität Salzberg.<br /> <br /> Kimball, Claire, and Charlene V. Smith (2024), ‘''The Bloody Banquet'' in Performance’, in William David Green, Anna L. Hegland, and Sam Jermy, eds, ''The Theatrical Legacy of Thomas Middleton, 1624–2024'' (London: Routledge). Forthcoming.<br /> <br /> Lake, David J. (1975), ''The Canon of Thomas Middleton’s Plays: Internal Evidence for the Major Problems of Authorship'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).<br /> <br /> Long, William B. (2014), ‘Playhouse Shadows: The Manuscript Behind ''Dick of Devonshire''’, ''Early Theatre'' (17), 146–68.<br /> <br /> McManaway, James G. (1946), ‘Latin Title Page Mottoes as a Clue to Dramatic Authorship’, ''The Library'' (26), 28–36.<br /> <br /> Meads, Chris (2001), ''Banquets Set Forth: Banqueting in English Renaissance Drama'' (Manchester: Manchester University Press).<br /> <br /> Munro, Lucy (2012), ‘Middleton and Caroline Theatre’, in Gary Taylor and Trish Thomas Henley, eds, ''The Oxford Handbook of Thomas Middleton'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 164–80.<br /> <br /> Oliphant, E. H. C. (1925), ‘''The Bloodie Banquet'', A Dekker-Middleton Play’, ''Times Literary Supplement'' (17 December), 882.<br /> <br /> Schoenbaum, Samuel, ed. (1961), ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Oxford: Malone Society Reprints).<br /> <br /> Schoenbaum, Samuel (1955), ''Middleton’s Tragedies: A Critical Study'' (New York: Columbia University Press).<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (2001), ‘Gender, Hunger, Horror: The History and Significance of ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies'' (1), 1–45.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (1993), ‘The Structure of Performance: Act-Intervals in the London Theatres, 1576-1642’, in John Jowett and Gary Taylor, eds, ''Shakespeare Reshaped, 1606-1623'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 3–50.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (2000), ‘Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'' (94), 197–233.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary, and John Lavagnino, eds (2007a), ''Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture: A Companion to the Collected Works'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press).<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary, and John Lavagnino, eds (2007b), ''Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press). All quotations from ''The Bloody Banquet'' and other works by Middleton are from this edition.<br /> [[category:1609]]<br /> [[category:Middleton,_Thomas]]<br /> [[category:Dekker,_Thomas]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by William David Green; updated on 24 March 2023.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Green, William David]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Bloody_Banquet,_The&diff=1213 2023-04-06T17:05:36Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== Year (composition) ==<br /> The date of composition remains uncertain, but probably falls within the range 1608-10.<br /> <br /> [[File:Bloodiebanquettr00tdac0013.jpg|alt=Title page of 1639 Quarto.|thumb|[https://archive.org/details/bloodiebanquettr00tdac/page/n11/mode/2up Title page of 1639 Quarto]. Barton Collection, Boston Public Library (G.3810.11).]] In Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino’s companion to the 2007 ''Collected Works of Middleton'' (colloquially known as ''The Oxford Middleton''), a date of 1608–9 is given (2007a: 364). Stylistic evidence is offered showing that versification and verbal parallels in the shares of both authors indicate a date of composition at the end of the first decade of the seventeenth century. As pointed out elsewhere by Taylor, whereas Dekker’s rate of rhymed lines as proportionate to lines of verse follows no clear pattern, Middleton’s rate began clearly dropping after the composition of ''A Mad World, My Masters'' in 1605: the rate in the Middleton scenes of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (21%) places that play within Middleton’s 1605–11 range (2001: 4–5). Their other evidence for dating is also taken from Taylor’s analysis, specifically: references to court drunkenness (2.1.37–41), which would have been particularly topical in light of the Jacobean court’s reputation for drunkenness, particularly after 1606 (2001: 8); references to a dearth in harvests (2.1.43–6; 2.2.2–10), which would be topical in 1608-9 due to the high corn prices of those years leading to rioting in England (2001: 8–9); and an apparent reference to pirates (2.1.70–3), which would have been particularly topical from 1609 onward, following King James I’s ‘Proclamation against Pirats’ of 8 January 1609 (2001: 10). From this convergence of evidence, 1608-9 arises as the most plausible date range for the ''Oxford Middleton'' editors.<br /> <br /> In his entry for ''The Bloody Banquet'' in ''British Drama, 1533-1642: A Catalogue'' (#1624), Martin Wiggins (in association with Catherine Richardson) pushes this slightly later, to 1610, observing that 1608–9 is ‘inherently less plausible owing to theatre closures in those years’. Wiggins notes that the reference to Lapyrus as the ‘devil in the vault’ (2.2.36) associates him with a description often applied to Guy Fawkes, suggesting that the play must at the very least post-date the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot in November 1605, but he also points out that there were a cluster of such allusions in 1610-11, including, perhaps most relevantly, in Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton’s ''The Roaring Girl'' (1611) and Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' (1611).<br /> <br /> Although Dekkerian/Middletonian recollections of the Gunpowder Plot in 1610-11 do not preclude the authors from also having had such an interest in 1608-9, the fact that the theatres were closed due to plague for the entirety of 1609 (Barroll 1991: 173, 178–86) does significantly reduce the likelihood of that being ''The Bloody Banquet''’s year of first performance. Additionally, in 1608 the theatres were open between April and June, but (aside from part of July) were closed for the rest of that year (Barroll 1991: 173); apart from the reference to Jacobean courtly drunkenness, April-July 1608 seems slightly too early for the strongest topical allusions identified above to receive a particularly powerful audience reaction (as the public response to corn prices was only just beginning, and James’s ‘Proclamation against Pirats’ did not come about until the start of 1609). Consequently, Wiggins’s suggestion of a 1610 date does seem persuasive.<br /> <br /> However, Wiggins’s protestations regarding the 1608–9 theatre closures are only relevant in terms of performance, not composition. With the theatres closed, it seems unlikely that Middleton and Dekker simply ceased writing, as they had to be ready for when the theatres were able to reopen.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, Dekker took a noticeable interest in the corn protests of 1609, as shown through his prose pamphlet ''Work for Armourers'', published in that year. Dekker takes aim at the ‘rich Farmers, Land-lords, and Graziers’ who ‘transport your corne, butter, cheese and all needfull commoditiess into other countries, of purpose to famish and impouerish these hated whining wretches’ by causing corn prices to increase ‘from foure to ten shillings a bushell,’ and then again ‘from ten to twelue shillings’ (F2v). As Taylor notes, the reference in ''The Bloody Banquet'' to ‘an angel a bushel’ (2.1.44–5) reflects Dekker’s protests about bushels increasing ‘from ten to twelue shillings’ in ''Work for Armourors''; an angel was a gold coin equalling eleven shillings (2001: 9). ''The Bloody Banquet'' might therefore also reflect Dekker’s concern with corn prices in 1609.<br /> <br /> As such, due to Dekker’s interest in the corn protests of this year, combined with the play’s reference to pirating, 1609 seems a good ‘best guess’ for composition of ''The Bloody Banquet'', even if first performance may have had to have been delayed until 1610.<br /> <br /> == Year (first printed) ==<br /> 1639. Quarto edition printed by Thomas Cotes.<br /> <br /> == Reprints (until 1700) ==<br /> None.<br /> <br /> == Authors (title-page ascription, including reprints) ==<br /> T. D.<br /> <br /> == Authors proposed (attribution scholarship) ==<br /> Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton, plus an unidentified adapter.<br /> <br /> ''The Bloody Banquet'' consists of 16 scenes, plus an Induction. The division of labour between the play’s two main collaborators and the subsequent adapter was likely as follows:<br /> <br /> Dekker: 1.1–3, 2.1–2, 2.4, and 5.1.110sd2–5.1.248sd1 (from the stage direction ‘''Thunder and lightning. A blazing star appears''’ to the play’s final ‘''Exeunt omnes''’).<br /> <br /> Middleton: 1.4, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, all of Act 4, and 5.1.1–110sd (from the beginning of the scene to the stage direction indicating that Zenarchus ‘''dies''’).<br /> <br /> Adapter: Induction, 2.5 (this scene might have been added to replace material cut from the Lapyrus plot; see below), possibly 3.2 (as this scene cannot confidently be attributed to either Middleton or Dekker), and other more minor textual alterations.<br /> <br /> == Genre ==<br /> Tragedy.<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> William Warner’s ''Pan His Syrinx'' (1584; second edition 1597). The playwrights based the play on 4 of the 7 stories featured in Warner’s book.<br /> <br /> Based on the surviving passages from the play that were included in the book ''England’s Parnassus'' in 1600, it appears that Dekker, Henry Chettle, and John Day’s earlier play ''Cupid and Psyche'' (June 1600; now lost) also served as a narrative influence (Wiggins #1247).<br /> <br /> == Auspices ==<br /> <br /> Original company undetermined. Later acquired by the King and Queen’s Young Company (aka ‘Beeston’s Boys’).<br /> <br /> == External Documentary Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Payments ===<br /> No extant records.<br /> <br /> === Stationers’ Register ===<br /> Not entered.<br /> <br /> === Title-page ascription(s) ===<br /> The ‘T. D.’ of the 1639 quarto is the only contemporary title page attribution.<br /> <br /> It is worth noting, however, that other plays by or partly by Thomas Dekker were similarly published bearing the initials ‘T. D.’, including Dekker and Middleton’s ''1 Honest Whore'' (1604).<br /> <br /> The title page of ''The Bloody Banquet'' also features a Latin motto (‘Hector adest secumque Deos in prœlia ducit’ [Then Hector appeared, bringing the gods to do battle with him] / ‘Nos hæc novimus esse nihil’ [We know these things to be nothing]); the first line is taken from Ovid’s ''Metamorphoses'', the second from Martial’s ''Epigrams''. Such Latin tags more generally are a recurring feature on the title pages of Dekker’s works, but are not unique to Dekker, and so are most suggestive in combination with other evidence for Dekker’s authorship. Interestingly, however, ‘Nos hæc novimus esse nihil’ is also quoted in the 1602 quarto of Dekker’s ''Satiromastix'' (1601), under the heading ‘Ad Detractorem’ (A2r).<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (external) ===<br /> Dekker and Middleton are known to have worked as close collaborators at many other times during their respective careers, so their co-authorship of ''The Bloody Banquet'' is not a surprising attribution. Specifically, Dekker and Middleton are recognised as the co-authors of the plays ''1 Honest Whore'' (1604), ''The Roaring Girl'' (1611), and ''The Spanish Gypsy'' (1623, with William Rowley and John Ford); the lost play ''Two Shapes'' (1602, with Michael Drayton, Anthony Munday, and John Webster); the prose works ''News from Gravesend: Sent to Nobody'' and ''The Meeting of Gallants at an Ordinary, or: The Walk in Paul’s'' (both 1604); and the multi-authored royal pageant ''The Magnificent Entertainment'' (1604), so their writing partnership is well established. When prose works and lost plays are included in the count, the number of works produced by the Dekker-Middleton partnership (seven) may well be greater than that produced by the more famous Middleton-Rowley partnership (six). (It should be noted that due to the possibility of Middleton’s part-authorship of Dekker, Ford, and Rowley’s ''The Witch of Edmonton'' (1621) the number of Middleton-Rowley collaborations could be as high as seven; however, in this case the Dekker-Middleton number would in turn rise to eight.)<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (external) ===<br /> The play was listed among 45 plays owned by William Beeston and his company (Beeston’s Boys), performing at the Cockpit, in an order issued by Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke (the Lord Chamberlain) on 10 August 1639, specifying works which other companies should not ‘intermedle wth or Act’ (Munro 2012: 164). If Beeston’s Boys was not the original company – which seems certain given that they were not formed until 1637 (Middleton died in 1627; Dekker died in 1632) – then this suggests ownership of the play must have been transferred to them from elsewhere, before mid-1639.<br /> <br /> The known history of Beeston’s Boys and their repertory suggests that they would likely have acquired the play from either the Duke of York’s (later Prince Charles’s) Men, Queen Anne’s Men, or the Children of the Queen’s Revels, all companies with whom Dekker and/or Middleton are known to have worked.<br /> <br /> === Allusions ===<br /> 13 extracts from ''The Bloody Banquet'' were included in John Cotgrave’s ''Wit’s Treasury'' in 1655, although Cotgrave never named the plays he quoted, nor the author(s) he associated with them.<br /> <br /> === Print and MS attributions ===<br /> <br /> The title page ascription to ‘T. D.’ was repeated in the play-lists of Richard Rogers and William Ley (1656) and Francis Kirkman (1661 and 1671).<br /> <br /> W. W. Greg (quoted in Schoenbaum 1961: vi) pointed out that as Kirkman is known to have been a friend of Beeston, he may have acquired information regarding the play’s authorship directly from him; however, as the 1639 quarto was already in print by the time Kirkman compiled his 1661 list, he just as likely copied the initials from that edition’s title page.<br /> <br /> Edward Archer’s play-list, appended to his copy of the 1656 quarto edition of Middleton, Rowley, and Thomas Heywood’s ''The Old Law'' (1619), attributes the play to one ‘Thomas Barker’, although this is an error Archer makes in place of Dekker’s name elsewhere in the same list, when recording Dekker’s known solo-authored plays ''Old Fortunatus'' (1599) and ''Match Me in London'' (1621).<br /> <br /> Anthony à Wood, in his c.1675–80 catalogue of the contents of Ralph Sheldon’s library, unequivocally attributes the play to Dekker (see Baugh 1918).<br /> <br /> (All of this evidence suggests Dekker as the play’s most likely author. Yet nowhere in the external evidence is there any indication of his having worked with a collaborator. However, as shown below, this is indicated by a variety of internal evidence, which has largely been identified and set forth in Lake 1975, Jackson 1979, Jackson 1998, Taylor 2000, and Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a.)<br /> <br /> == Internal Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Palaeographical evidence ===<br /> N/A.<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (internal) ===<br /> Evidence for the presence of an adapter in 2.5 is that this scene is completely unlike anything else Dekker or Middleton produced during their respective careers, most obviously with regard to the opening Chorus. This Chorus seeks to cram a lot of information into just 15 lines, and may be a rushed attempt by the adapter to replace plot content that had been removed by their cuts. In comparison, Dekker preferred to write much longer descriptive choruses (such as the 40-line Chorus that begins Act 2 of ''Old Fortunatus''), whereas Middleton more commonly crafted a distinct personality/character for his narrators (as in Raynulph’s chorus that concludes scene 2.2 of ''Hengist, King of Kent'' (1620)), a personality which is not provided in this ''Bloody Banquet'' Chorus.<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (internal) ===<br /> As the play calls for the use of props resembling severed human limbs, this could potentially indicate that the play previously belonged to Queen Anne’s Men during their affiliation with the Red Bull Theatre, as the same kind of prop also appears in Heywood’s ''The Golden Age'', which they also owned, and which was originally performed at the Red Bull in 1611 (i.e. just a year or two after ''The Bloody Banquet'' was likely first performed): ‘''A banquet brought in, with the limbs of a man in the service''’ (Gaines and Ioppolo 2023: iii, 2.2.34.1). However, in the absence of firmer evidence for ownership, this remains speculation.<br /> <br /> Internal evidence that ''The Bloody Banquet'' underwent a process of later adaptation is characteristic of several other plays acquired by Beeston’s company and included in the 1639 order. Specifically, this internal evidence for adaptation could indicate that ownership of ''The Bloody Banquet'' passed from its original company through Queen Henrietta’s Men (formed in 1625), before being acquired by Beeston’s Boys. Indeed, the 1639 Beeston’s Boys order includes 4 other plays known to have been adapted for performance by Queen Henrietta’s Men:<br /> <br /> * Heywood’s ''The Rape of Lucrece'' (1607-8), revised with the addition of new songs and performed by Queen Henrietta’s Men on 30 July 1628.<br /> * Rowley’s ''Cupid’s Vagaries'' (c.1611, now lost), for which Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert was paid a licencing fee of £1 by Christopher Beeston on 15 August 1633. Christopher Beeston was responsible for the formation of Queen Henrietta’s Men, so this payment is a probable indicator of ownership by them.<br /> * George Chapman’s ''Chabot, Admiral of France'' (c.1612), licensed by Herbert on 29 April 1635, and listed as performed by Queen Henrietta’s Men on the title page of the 1639 quarto (which, like the 1639 ''Bloody Banquet'' quarto, was printed by Thomas Cotes).<br /> * John Fletcher’s ''The Night Walker'' (c.1615), a version of which was licenced by Herbert for performance by Queen Henrietta’s Men on 11 May 1633.<br /> <br /> Christopher Beeston, manager of Queen Henrietta’s Men, was the father of William Beeston, manager of Beeston’s Boys, and both companies performed at the Cockpit, so the internal evidence for adaptation in ''The Bloody Banquet'' may well lead us to consider Queen Henrietta’s Men as possible previous owners of the play. Furthermore, of the known companies related to these 4 plays, ''The Rape of Lucrece'' was originally a property of Queen Anne’s Men and ''Cupid’s Vagaries'' was originally a property of the Duke of York’s Men, both of which fit the known acquisition practices of Beeston’s Boys.<br /> <br /> Of the 4 plays known to have been acquired by Beeston’s Boys from Queen Henrietta’s Men, 3 (''Cupid’s Vagaries''; ''Chabot, Admiral of France''; ''The Night Walker'') are known through both external and internal evidence to have been adapted by James Shirley. Given the possible association with Queen Henrietta’s Men, it is tempting to consider Shirley a candidate for the otherwise unidentified adapter of ''The Bloody Banquet'', although this supposition will require further investigation.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, in 1640 two playwrights associated with Beeston, Richard Brome and Thomas Nabbes, separately complained about the abridgement of their texts for performance (Bentley 1971: 236-7). This indicates an apparent preference for shorter plays on the part of Beeston, and Beeston’s willingness to commission cuts to pre-existing texts might explain further why the surviving version of ''The Bloody Banquet'' is shorter than any other play by Dekker or Middleton (except, in Middleton’s case, ''The Nice Valour'' (1622), although this work was published more than two decades after its original performances, and is itself likely a text that has undergone adaptation).<br /> <br /> It is worth noting here that the quarto text’s use of act/scene divisions that are clumsily imposed upon the text after 5.1.110 (creating a false scene break into 5.1 and a non-existent ‘5.2’; see below) suggests that the copy of the play that lies behind the quarto may have had its act/scene divisions imposed onto it sometime after its original performance. Indeed, if the play was originally performed at an outdoor theatre (like the Red Bull) it would not have used act divisions (see Taylor 1993), but these would have been added into the play when it transferred to an indoor theatre (the Cockpit). The problematic split in the middle of 5.1 could be evidence of later act/scene divisions added into the text as part of a textual restructuring undertaken following the larger process of adaptation. Claire Kimball and Charlene V. Smith have pointed out that the encounter between Tymethes and the Young Queen in 4.3 benefits from the application of pitch darkness that would have been made possible by performance in an indoor playhouse (Kimball and Smith 2024: forthcoming), in similar vein to a ‘dark scene’ in Webster’s Blackfriars play ''The Duchess of Malfi'' (1614); if so, it might indicate that something in the dramaturgy of this scene might also have been altered by the play’s adapter, if the play were transported from an outdoor playhouse to the indoor Cockpit.<br /> <br /> === Metrical evidence ===<br /> In scenes attributed to Dekker, 6 out of 174 rhymes are feminine (3.4%). In scenes attributed to Middleton, 28 out of 208 are feminine (13.5%). The significant split in the frequency of feminine rhymes between these differently attributed scenes provides strong evidence that they are indeed the product of two different hands. Furthermore, these rates seem appropriately Dekkerian and Middletonian respectively (Taylor 2000: 219).<br /> <br /> 1.3.8–9 (‘Stop her mouth first. Soldiers must have their sport. / ’Tis dearly earned; they venture their blood for’t’), attributed to Dekker, employs the same ‘sport/for[’]t’ rhyme as is also found in both Dekker’s ''2 Honest Whore'' (1605) at 4.1.311–12 (‘Common? as spotted Leopards, whom for sport / Men hunt, to get the flesh, but care not for’t’) and ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' at 2.1.121–3 (‘S’bloud if we tosse not them, hang’s agen: a fort / We ha built without, and mand it, this was the sport’). Additionally the ‘ill[s]/pill[s]’ rhyme of 1.3.5–6 (‘Earth, stretch thy throat: take down this bitter pill, / Loathing the hateful taste of his own ill’) also features in Dekker’s ''2 Honest Whore'' at 5.2.488–9 (‘all your Ills / Are cleare purged from you by his working pills’).<br /> <br /> === Chronological evidence ===<br /> All act and scene divisions in the surviving version of the play are presented logically in sequence, apart from one false scene division in the Cotes quarto that occurs after what is given as line 5.1.110 in the ''Oxford Middleton'' edition. This may be suggestive of two hands working in collaboration in the manuscript that was being consulted by the printer, with the change in author being misinterpreted as a division between 5.1 and an unintended ‘5.2’. 5.1 seems to be the only ‘co-authored’ scene in the play (at least, of the scenes that can be confidently attributed).<br /> <br /> The difficulty in attributing 3.2 to either Dekker or Middleton may support evidence of adaptation, when the position of 3.2 between 3.1 and 3.3 is considered. If an adapter had removed material from the Lapyrus plot that fell between 3.1 and 3.3, they would have to have replaced that material with a new scene, so as not to violate the so-called ‘law of re-entry’. Furthermore, as this scene stylistically cannot have been by Middleton, if it were by Dekker it would be his only contribution to the Tymethes plot in the entire play (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a: 365).<br /> <br /> === Vocabulary ===<br /> Many of Middleton’s favoured contractions are present in this play and constitute suggestive evidence for his part-authorship. One rare occurrence in the quarto text is ''Sh’had'' (1.1.75); this occurs 6 times in the Middleton canon, but is rare elsewhere. ''I’m'' is used 13 times, ''I’d'' twice, ''ne’er'' 18 times, ''e’en'' thrice, and ''y’'' 6 times, and ''’t'' contractions appear 34 times. Furthermore, ''h’as'' and ''’tad'' each appear once (Jackson 1979: 114–15). The abbreviation ''’em'', often used by Middleton, is not common in the text of ''The Bloody Banquet'', but does appear in the Middleton-ascribed scenes 1.4, 3.3, and 4.3. ''T’abuse'' appears at 5.1.27 and five other times in Middleton (''The Widow'' (1615), 1.1.192; ''The Witch'' (1616), 4.2.101 and 5.1.66; ''Hengist, King of Kent'', 4.2.27; and ''The Nice Valour'', 5.3.126), but never in Dekker.<br /> <br /> === Oaths and interjections ===<br /> A possibly Dekkerian oath, ''s’nails'' (meaning ‘by God’s nails), occurs at 2.2.27, but many other dramatists are known to have used this oath, meaning it does not constitute strong evidence for Dekker’s presence on its own (Lake: 238).<br /> <br /> At 1.4.127 and 2.3.28, we find the oath ''mass'', one Middleton is known to have been fond of using. At 1.4.149 and 2.3.55 we find ''s’foote'', another Middletonian oath, and at 1.4.176 ''hum'', an exclamation very uncommon outside of Middleton.<br /> <br /> Most tellingly in the case of oaths and other expletives, of the 39 expletives known to be more common to Middleton that to any other early modern playwright, 19 appear in ''The Bloody Banquet''; this high rate is only surpassed by one other play, Nathan Field’s ''Amends for Ladies'' (1610), although it is worth noting that this play is itself 22% longer than the extant version of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Taylor 2000: 207). The Middletonian expletives that appear in ''The Bloody Banquet'' are ''troth'', ''by this light'', ''i’faith'', ''faith'', ''by my faith'', ''mass'', ''by my troth'', ''by the mass'', ''s’foot'', ''puh'', ''why le/law you now'', ''pish'', ''hist'', ''whist'', ''death'', ''pox on'', ''pox of'', ''prithee'', ''how now'', ''I warrant'', ''hum'', and ''and by this hand''.<br /> <br /> Of these, Jackson observed that the play’s author made use of ''puh'' and ''why law you now'' 11 times, and noted that ''la'' or ''law'' is very common in Jacobean drama, but immediately preceding it with ''why'' or following it with ''you'' is much less common, and ''why la''[''w''] ''you'' is a very rare formulation, except as an indicator of Middleton’s authorship. Jackson found in 4,000 plays only 5 with both ''puh'' and ''why la''[''w''] ''you'': ''The Bloody Banquet'' and 4 established Middleton plays, these being ''The Puritan'' (1606), ''1 Honest Whore'', ''No Wit, No Help Like a Woman’s'' (1611), and ''Wit at Several Weapons'' (1613). Furthermore, ''my troth'' can only be found in 7 plays: ''The Phoenix'' (1604), ''Michaelmas Term'' (1604), ''A Trick to Catch the Old One'' (1605), ''A Mad World, My Masters'' (1605), ''The Puritan'', ''Wit at Several Weapons'', and Shakespeare’s ''Coriolanus'' (1608), the latter being the only non-Middleton example (1998: 4).<br /> <br /> Additionally, ''a murren on you'' or ''a murren on them'' is an unusual oath formulation in the extant corpus of early modern drama, but it also appears in Middleton’s ''Hengist, King of Kent'' at 5.1.263. Similarly, ''a murren meet ’em'' appears in ''A Mad World, My Masters'' at 2.6.77, and ''The Revenger’s Tragedy'' (1606) at 3.6.84 (Holdsworth 1994). Dekker, however, does use ''how a murrain'' in ''The Shoemaker’s Holiday'' (1599) at 4.2.48 (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007b: 366), although this resembles the Middleton parallels markedly less.<br /> <br /> The oath ''s’light'' also appears in Middleton’s ''The Widow'' and ''Your Five Gallants'' (1607).<br /> <br /> === Linguistic evidence ===<br /> One stand-out piece of evidence regarding Middletonian spellings has been pointed out in Taylor and Lavagnino, namely that ‘trechery’ (4.3.240) and ‘trecher’ (4.3.257) parallel Middleton’s spellings of these words in his 1624 play ''A Game at Chess'' (at 4.4.14 and 4.2.8 respectively) (2007a: 367).<br /> <br /> At 1.1.45, we find the same kind of alliteration between '''‘'''devil’ and ‘duke[dom]’ as can also be found to occur in ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''. Compare ''The Bloody Banquet''’s ‘The devil! The dukedom, the kingdom, Lydia’ with ''The Revenger’s Tragedy’s'' ‘Ay, to the devil. – To th’ Duke, by my faith’ (2.1.202).<br /> <br /> === Stage directions ===<br /> In similar fashion to the conclusion of ''The Bloody Banquet'', an ecclesiastically-disguised character (and more specifically, a ‘good’ character) also appears in the final scenes of Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' and ''The Noble Spanish Soldier'' (1622), and Dekker and Middleton’s ''1 Honest Whore''. Crucially, this is not a plot detail found in the Warner source material, and so was evidently an invention of the dramatist(s). In this light, its incorporation into the play’s narrative seems remarkably Dekkerian.<br /> <br /> The speech prefix ‘Omn.’ (at 1.1.2) is very rare in Middleton, appearing only once each in ''Hengist, King of Kent'', ''Women Beware Women'' (1621), and ''The Nice Valour''. However, ‘Omnes’ as a speech prefix is common in Dekker, appearing multiple times in several of his solo-authored plays: ''Blurt, Master Constable'' (1601); ''Satiromastix''; ''2 Honest Whore''; ''The Whore of Babylon'' (1606); and ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It''.<br /> <br /> The stage direction that opens 3.3, ‘''Enter Roxano leading Tymethes. Mazeres meets them''’ (3.3.0sd) bears a telling Middletonian characteristic, specifically the formulation ‘''Enter A meeting B''’ or ''Enter A. B meets A''’, a style of entry direction that is unique to Middleton. The fact that this entry direction describes ‘''Roxano leading Tymethes''’ along what Tymethes calls a ‘blind pilgrimage’ (3.3.1) also resembles the opening stage direction of 3.1 of Middleton’s ''The'' ''Witch'': ‘''Enter Duchess, leading Almachildes blindfold''’ (3.1.0sd).<br /> <br /> The use of a ‘''blazing star''’ in the stage direction at 5.1.110sd2 resembles Dekker’s use of such imagery in ''2 Honest Whore'' 4.2.52, but this image appears frequently in the works of Middleton, most famously in ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''.<br /> <br /> Another interesting feature that may be indicative of Middletonian dramaturgy is the application of two banqueting scenes (3.3 and 5.1), the latter of which is a more tragic inversion of the former (see Meads: 154–7). Such a symbolic pairing of banqueting scenes is something that dramaturgically interested Middleton (see Green: 190–1).<br /> <br /> === Verbal parallels ===<br /> A signifier of Dekker’s presence can be found early in the Cotes quarto, when the list of characters is described as a ‘Drammatis Personae’ (A1&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;) rather than i.e. ‘Names of the Persons’. This is a description common to Dekker’s works or works involving Dekker, and can be found in quartos of ''Satiromastix'', ''The Whore of Babylon'', ''The Roaring Girl'', ''The Noble Spanish Soldier'', ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' (1623), and ''The Spanish Gypsy'' (Lake: 239).<br /> <br /> There are many verbal parallels in the play’s text that can be linked to other works by Dekker. The ‘venture their blood’ imagery of 1.3.9 recalls ''The Whore of Babylon'' 5.6.19 (‘venture our owne bloud’). The connection between the words ‘dear’ and ‘earn’ (‘’Tis dearly earned’, 1.3.9) also appears in ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' 2.1.173 (‘hee that dearest earnes his bread’) and 4.4.11 (‘At how deere rate the careles world does earne’). Lapyrus’s line at 1.3.5-6 (‘Earth, stretch thy throat: take down this bitter pill, / Loathing the hateful taste of his own ill’) also recalls the language of Dekker: in ''The Whore of Babylon'' 5.4.12-13 we find ‘fifty Canons throats, / Stretcht wide’; ‘take […] this bitter pill’ recalls ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' 2.1.87-8 (‘Even in this bitter pill (for me) so you / Would play but my Phisician, and say, take it’); and ‘loath[ing] […] taste’ recalls ''Old Fortunatus'' 4.1.140 (‘thy gifts I loath to tast’). Of this last point of comparison, a juxtaposition between ‘taste’ and ‘hate’ within 4 words also appears in ''2 Honest Whore'' 1.2.159 (‘he taught her first to taste poison; I hate her for her selfe’).<br /> <br /> Another interesting point is the speech at 1.3.19-23, with its focus on prayers for soldiers, a concern also expressed by Dekker in his ''Four Birds of Noah’s Ark'' (1609).<br /> <br /> Similar Middleton parallels in the play include ‘Right oracle!’ (1.4.25), which recalls ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''’s ‘’Tis oracle’ (4.1.89), where in both senses ‘oracle’ means ‘absolute truth’, and ‘Heart of ill fortune!’ (4.1.45), which strikingly resembles ‘Heart, of chance’ (6.4) in ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' (1605).<br /> <br /> ‘I never knew the force of a desire / Until this minute’ (1.4.42) resembles ''The Revenger’s Tragedy'' 2.2.34-5 (‘I never thought their sex had been a wonder / Until this minute’), ''Wit at Several Weapons'' 1.1.210 (‘I never beheld comeliness till this minute’), and ''A Mad World, My Masters'' 4.5.17-19 (‘I ne’er knew / At which end to begin to affect a woman / Till this bewitching minute’).<br /> <br /> ‘Favours are grown to custom ’twixt ’em both: / Letters, close banquets, whisperings, private meetings’ (4.1.32) recalls what Taylor calls Middleton’s fondness for ‘catalogues of debauchery’ (Taylor 2001: 209), as in ''A Trick to Catch the Old One'' 5.2.172-3 (‘All secret friends and private meetings, / Close-borne letters and bawds’ greetings’).<br /> <br /> === Image clusters ===<br /> <br /> The line ‘As your son and heir at his father’s funeral’ (1.4.2) recalls Middleton’s fondness for jokes surrounding imagery of a father’s death, which are also made use of in ''The Puritan'' 1.1 and ''The'' ''Revenger’s Tragedy'' 4.2.<br /> <br /> Middleton is also known to have identified the imagery of a padlock as something distinctly Italian, as at 1.4.29. See, for example, ''A Mad World, My Masters'' 1.2.22–3 (‘kept by the Italian under lock and key’) and ''A Chaste Maid in Cheapside'' (1613) 4.4.4–5 (‘padlocks, father; the Venetian uses it’).<br /> <br /> Holdsworth (1994) has drawn attention to the rareness of the image of a person in wax at 2.1.62–3 (‘my young prodigal first in wax’), but which is similar to imagery found in ''Michaelmas Term'' 4.1.45–6 and ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' 1.51–2. Dekker does use a comparable image in ''Lantern and Candlelight'' (1608), but unlike in the Middleton parallels does not use the specific phrase ‘in wax’ (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a: 367).<br /> <br /> The reference to a ‘sea-wolf’ (i.e. a pirate) at 2.1.68 connects the play to all three of the Middleton plays that can be dated to 1611, just a year or two after the composition of ''The Bloody Banquet'': piratical imagery appears in ''The Roaring Girl'', ''The Lady’s Tragedy'', and ''No Wit, No Help Like a Woman’s''.<br /> <br /> Imagery connecting the ideas of sport and soldiers (‘Soldiers must have their sport’, 1.3.8) also appears in Dekker’s ''The Whore of Babylon'' 4.3.26 (‘tis the souldiers sport’) and ''2 Honest Whore'' 4.1.286–8 (‘Soldiers fight for them […] Thus (for sport sake)’).<br /> <br /> The Tyrant’s use of a metaphor about bees at 1.1.26–7 (‘so unload victory’s honey thighs / To let drones feed’) recalls a similar bee-based metaphor used by a villainous character in Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' (1.3.162–8).<br /> <br /> Another potential Dekkerian image is the combination of widows and orphans as an emotional image, as can be found at 2.1.5 (‘devour a widow and three orphans’), and which is also used by Dekker in ''The Raven’s Almanac'' (1609).<br /> <br /> In Dekker, Chettle, and William Haughton’s ''Patient Grissel'' (1599), Dekker writes a passage in which Grissel is prevented from breastfeeding her two new-born babies (4.1.123–4), which may be recalled in the description of the Old Queen and her famished infants (2.2.9–10).<br /> <br /> Finally, the use of wolf imagery in a discussion about strength versus weakness (2.1.74–6) can also be found in Dekker’s ''Match Me in London'' at 4.1.58–66.<br /> <br /> == Critical Debate ==<br /> E. H. C. Oliphant was the first to propose Dekker and Middleton as co-authors of the play, in a ''Times Literary Supplement'' article of 1925, and his argument was subsequently endorsed by Gerald J. Eberle in 1948 (725). Oliphant’s analysis was not widely accepted at first, however, despite the fact that, to quote Taylor, Oliphant ‘was the key figure in redefining the Middleton canon in the twentieth century, and almost all of his attributions have been accepted and confirmed by subsequent scholars’ (Taylor 2000: 198). Indeed, in the 1950s Samuel Schoenbaum dismissed Oliphant as having ‘failed to make a convincing case’ regarding the play’s authorship (1955: 226), and Gerald Eades Bentley was even more scornful, stating that ‘The case for Dekker and Middleton is based mostly on parallels and repeated words and phrases – the flimsiest kind of “evidence”’ (1956: iii, 282–3). David J. Lake (1975: 239–41) and MacDonald P. Jackson (1979: 113–16), however, did take the Dekker-Middleton attribution more seriously, and although at the time they considered it far from proven – to quote Jackson’s later words on the matter, at the time they were both ‘non-committal’ (1998: 4) – most scholars now accept ''The Bloody Banquet'' to be a collaborative work by Dekker and Middleton; Jackson later substantially revised his opinion, stating that ‘It is clear to me now that those links are so strong as to constitute virtual proof that Oliphant was right’ (1998: 4). In 2007 the play was included as part of the ''Oxford Middleton'', in a text edited by Taylor and Julia Gasper (2007b: 637-69), thus enshrining the play in print as part of the Middleton canon for the very first time; the play had previously been excluded from the Middleton collected works of Alexander Dyce (1840) and A. H. Bullen (1885–7), both of which were published long before Oliphant’s analysis.<br /> <br /> Other possible alternative authors have been proposed over the years, although each has seen far less scholarly acceptance. One alternative candidate, promoted by Frederick Gard Fleay, was Thomas Drue (or Drew), the only other known playwright from the time to have the initials ‘T. D.’ (1891: i, 162). However, both Lake and Jackson ruled Drue out in their stylistic analyses of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Lake: 233–4; Jackson 1979: 113–16). Drue is the author of only one other acknowledged play that survives to this day, ''The Duchess of Suffolk'' (1624), so an attribution of ''The Bloody Banquet'' to Drue could be argued to bring with it little critical enlightenment.<br /> <br /> Additionally, David Erskine Baker suggested Robert Davenport as the play’s author on the basis that ''The Bloody Banquet'' is listed after several Davenport plays in Herbert‘s list, the argument thus being that the ‘T. D.’ on the 1639 title page was a mistake for ‘R. D.’ (1812: 61). However, this argument is no more persuasive than someone in favour of Middleton’s authorship saying, conversely, that ‘T. D.’ is a mistake for ‘T. M.’ The Davenport theory was nevertheless later revived by James G. McManaway, although he largely based this argument on the fact that the ‘Hector adest secumque Deos in prœlia ducit’ motto on ''The Bloody Banquet''’s title page also appears on the manuscript of the anonymous play ''Dick of Devonshire'' (1626-7), which McManaway (on little evidence) also attributed to Davenport (1946: 34). McManaway claimed to have found ‘considerable internal evidence that [''The Bloody Banquet''] and ''Dick of Devonshire'' are from the same pen, and that the writer was indeed Robert Davenport’ (35), but he did not proceed to provide this supposed evidence. Davenport’s authorship of ''Dick of Devonshire'' is no longer supported in present-day scholarship; indeed, Heywood is believed to be a much more likely candidate (see e.g. Long 2014; Greatley-Hirsch, Pangallo, and White 2024).<br /> <br /> == Critical Commentary ==<br /> The authorship of 3.2 is uncertain. The scene displays Dekker’s fondness for ''hath'' over ''has'', and this form of the word occurs twice in this short scene; however, ''hath'' was a popular form used by many other dramatists, so is not necessarily a strong indicator of Dekker’s authorship specifically, and could just as easily be the preference of the play’s adapter. In the absence of firmer evidence, the author of 3.2 remains undetermined. However, as with many surviving early modern plays published many years after their original composition and performance, the presence of an adapting hand in ''The Bloody Banquet'' seems incredibly likely.<br /> <br /> Given its relatively short length, it is generally agreed that the Cotes quarto reproduces an abridged text of the play, something we know was a theatrical practice undertaken by Beeston’s company (see above). Schoenbaum (1961: vii-viii) observed numerous curiosities in the text that are at the very least suggestive of significant cutting and other forms of alteration. These include (I hear indicate cut material using &lt; &gt;):<br /> <br /> * A line seemingly lost at Induction.Chorus.11 (‘This Lord Lapyrus entertained and welcomed / By &lt; &gt;, / But chiefly by the fair Eurymone’).<br /> * Further lines possibly removed from 1.1.154–5 (‘Or if for larger bounties &lt; &gt; I was mad’), 4.3.106-8 (‘Had any warning fast’ned on thy senses, / &lt; &gt; / Rash, unadvisèd youth, whom my soul weeps for’), and 5.1.13–16 (although in this case such a cut is not noted in the ''Oxford Middleton'' text).<br /> * An incomplete line at 1.4.29 (‘Italian padlocks, &lt; &gt;’).<br /> * Sextorio and Lodovicus being named as such in the ‘Drammatis Personae’ and in 1.1, but then becoming ‘Sertorio’ and ‘Lodovico’ in Acts 4 and 5.<br /> * Armatrites being named as such in speech prefixes throughout 1.1, but becoming simply ‘Tyrant’ from then on.<br /> * The Young Queen claiming ‘I speak strange words against my fantasy’ at 1.4.66, despite having done no such thing.<br /> * The Old King of Lydia saying ‘On thee, ''Lapyrus'', and thy treacheries, fall / The heavy burden of an old man’s curse’ at 1.1.69–70, and calling him an ‘Inhuman monster!’ at 2.4.3, but then easily forgiving him just 9 lines later (‘Set all our hands to help him. – Come, good man’, 2.4.12) with no clear indication as to why. This differs substantially from the Warner source material.<br /> * The King of Lycia, Zantippus, and Eurymone being afforded noteworthy status by being listed in the play’s ‘Drammatis Personae’, but only appearing in the dumb show of the Induction.<br /> <br /> Most striking, however, is a change in the play’s narratives after Act 2. As Schoenbaum noted, in Acts 1 and 2 the playwrights establish the story of the Young Queen, Tymethes, and the Tyrant in 3 scenes, while 5 are devoted to the tale of the Old Queen, Lapyrus, and the King. After this, the latter story is not picked up again until the final scene, when they appear disguised as pilgrims. It is never explained why they are dressed in such a fashion or from where they acquired such garments, suggesting a significant amount of subplot material may have been removed from the play by an adapting hand. Acts 2, 3, and 5 are also markedly short in comparison with Acts 1 and 4, which may be further evidence of substantial cutting; if the respective lengths of Acts 1 and 4 were replicated throughout the play, ''The Bloody Banquet'' would be of an average length for drama of the period, so the play’s brevity is seemingly a consequence of the unusual shortness of Acts 2, 3, and 5. It thus appears that the adapter considered material from the Lapyrus plot the most worthy of being dispensed with.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, given the amount of scenes focusing on the Lapyrus plot in Act 1 compared with amount of scenes dedicated to the Tymethes plot in the same Act, it is possible that the importance of the plots has been reversed in the extant version of the play. Whereas now the Lapyrus plot appears to be something of a subplot, in the original version the story of Lapyrus might have been the majority focus, with the Tymethes plot taking subplot status. While the play’s title, ''The Bloody Banquet'', clearly relates to the Tymethes plot, this was not necessarily the title of the play under which it was originally performed in c.1609 (and in any case, plays did sometimes take their titles from their subplot).<br /> <br /> == Further Thoughts ==<br /> <br /> == Works Cited ==<br /> Barroll, Leeds (1991), ''Politics, Plague, and Shakespeare’s Theater: The Stuart Years'' (New York: Cornell University Press).<br /> <br /> Baker, David Erskine (1812), ''Biographia Dramatica, or, A Companion to the Playhouse'' (Dublin: T. Henshall).<br /> <br /> Baugh, Albert C. (1918), ‘A Seventeenth Century Play-List’, ''Modern Language Review'' (13), 401–11.<br /> <br /> Bentley, Gerald Eades (1956), ''The Jacobean and Caroline Stage'', vol. iii (Oxford: Clarendon Press).<br /> <br /> Bentley, Gerald Eades (1971), ''The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s Time'' (Princeton: Princeton University Press).<br /> <br /> Bowers, Fredson, ed. (1953–61), ''The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker'', 4 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). All quotations from the works of Dekker are from this edition.<br /> <br /> Eberle, Gerald J. (1948), ‘Dekker’s Part in ''The Family of Love''’, in James G. McManaway, Giles E. Dawson, and Edwin E. Willoughby (eds), ''Joseph Quincy Adams Memorial Studies'' (Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library), 723–38.<br /> <br /> Fleay, Frederick Gard (1891), ''A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama 1559–1642'', vol. i (London: Reeves and Turner).<br /> <br /> Gaines, Barry, and Grace Ioppolo, eds (2023), ''The Collected Works of Thomas Heywood'', vol. iii (Oxford: Oxford University Press).<br /> <br /> Greatley-Hirsch, Brett, Matteo Pangallo, and Rachel White (2024), ‘“Text up his name”: The Authorship of the Manuscript Play ''Dick of Devonshire’, Studies in Philology'' (121), forthcoming.<br /> <br /> Green, William David (2020), ‘“Such Violent Hands”: The Theme of Cannibalism and the Implications of Authorship in the 1623 Text of ''Titus Andronicus''’, ''Exchanges'' (7), 182–99.<br /> <br /> Holdsworth, R. V. (1994), ‘A Middleton Oath in ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' and ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Notes and Queries'' (239), 70.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. (1998), ‘Editing, Attribution Studies, and “Literature Online”: A New Resource for Research in Renaissance Drama’, ''Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama'' (37), 1–15.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. (1979), ''Studies in Attribution: Middleton and Shakespeare'' (Salzburg: Universität Salzberg.<br /> <br /> Kimball, Claire, and Charlene V. Smith (2024), ‘''The Bloody Banquet'' in Performance’, in William David Green, Anna L. Hegland, and Sam Jermy, eds, ''The Theatrical Legacy of Thomas Middleton, 1624–2024'' (London: Routledge). Forthcoming.<br /> <br /> Lake, David J. (1975), ''The Canon of Thomas Middleton’s Plays: Internal Evidence for the Major Problems of Authorship'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).<br /> <br /> Long, William B. (2014), ‘Playhouse Shadows: The Manuscript Behind ''Dick of Devonshire''’, ''Early Theatre'' (17), 146–68.<br /> <br /> McManaway, James G. (1946), ‘Latin Title Page Mottoes as a Clue to Dramatic Authorship’, ''The Library'' (26), 28–36.<br /> <br /> Meads, Chris (2001), ''Banquets Set Forth: Banqueting in English Renaissance Drama'' (Manchester: Manchester University Press).<br /> <br /> Munro, Lucy (2012), ‘Middleton and Caroline Theatre’, in Gary Taylor and Trish Thomas Henley, eds, ''The Oxford Handbook of Thomas Middleton'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 164–80.<br /> <br /> Oliphant, E. H. C. (1925), ‘''The Bloodie Banquet'', A Dekker-Middleton Play’, ''Times Literary Supplement'' (17 December), 882.<br /> <br /> Schoenbaum, Samuel, ed. (1961), ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Oxford: Malone Society Reprints).<br /> <br /> Schoenbaum, Samuel (1955), ''Middleton’s Tragedies: A Critical Study'' (New York: Columbia University Press).<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (2001), ‘Gender, Hunger, Horror: The History and Significance of ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies'' (1), 1–45.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (1993), ‘The Structure of Performance: Act-Intervals in the London Theatres, 1576-1642’, in John Jowett and Gary Taylor, eds, ''Shakespeare Reshaped, 1606-1623'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 3–50.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (2000), ‘Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'' (94), 197–233.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary, and John Lavagnino, eds (2007a), ''Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture: A Companion to the Collected Works'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press).<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary, and John Lavagnino, eds (2007b), ''Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press). All quotations from ''The Bloody Banquet'' and other works by Middleton are from this edition.<br /> [[category:1609]]<br /> [[category:Middleton,_Thomas]]<br /> [[category:Dekker,_Thomas]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by William David Green; updated on 24 March 2023.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Green, William David]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Bloody_Banquet,_The&diff=1212 2023-04-06T17:05:01Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Bloodiebanquettr00tdac0013.jpg|alt=Title page of 1639 Quarto.|thumb|[https://archive.org/details/bloodiebanquettr00tdac/page/n11/mode/2up Title page of 1639 Quarto]. Barton Collection, Boston Public Library (G.3810.11).]]<br /> <br /> == Year (composition) ==<br /> The date of composition remains uncertain, but probably falls within the range 1608-10.<br /> <br /> In Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino’s companion to the 2007 ''Collected Works of Middleton'' (colloquially known as ''The Oxford Middleton''), a date of 1608–9 is given (2007a: 364). Stylistic evidence is offered showing that versification and verbal parallels in the shares of both authors indicate a date of composition at the end of the first decade of the seventeenth century. As pointed out elsewhere by Taylor, whereas Dekker’s rate of rhymed lines as proportionate to lines of verse follows no clear pattern, Middleton’s rate began clearly dropping after the composition of ''A Mad World, My Masters'' in 1605: the rate in the Middleton scenes of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (21%) places that play within Middleton’s 1605–11 range (2001: 4–5). Their other evidence for dating is also taken from Taylor’s analysis, specifically: references to court drunkenness (2.1.37–41), which would have been particularly topical in light of the Jacobean court’s reputation for drunkenness, particularly after 1606 (2001: 8); references to a dearth in harvests (2.1.43–6; 2.2.2–10), which would be topical in 1608-9 due to the high corn prices of those years leading to rioting in England (2001: 8–9); and an apparent reference to pirates (2.1.70–3), which would have been particularly topical from 1609 onward, following King James I’s ‘Proclamation against Pirats’ of 8 January 1609 (2001: 10). From this convergence of evidence, 1608-9 arises as the most plausible date range for the ''Oxford Middleton'' editors.<br /> <br /> In his entry for ''The Bloody Banquet'' in ''British Drama, 1533-1642: A Catalogue'' (#1624), Martin Wiggins (in association with Catherine Richardson) pushes this slightly later, to 1610, observing that 1608–9 is ‘inherently less plausible owing to theatre closures in those years’. Wiggins notes that the reference to Lapyrus as the ‘devil in the vault’ (2.2.36) associates him with a description often applied to Guy Fawkes, suggesting that the play must at the very least post-date the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot in November 1605, but he also points out that there were a cluster of such allusions in 1610-11, including, perhaps most relevantly, in Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton’s ''The Roaring Girl'' (1611) and Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' (1611).<br /> <br /> Although Dekkerian/Middletonian recollections of the Gunpowder Plot in 1610-11 do not preclude the authors from also having had such an interest in 1608-9, the fact that the theatres were closed due to plague for the entirety of 1609 (Barroll 1991: 173, 178–86) does significantly reduce the likelihood of that being ''The Bloody Banquet''’s year of first performance. Additionally, in 1608 the theatres were open between April and June, but (aside from part of July) were closed for the rest of that year (Barroll 1991: 173); apart from the reference to Jacobean courtly drunkenness, April-July 1608 seems slightly too early for the strongest topical allusions identified above to receive a particularly powerful audience reaction (as the public response to corn prices was only just beginning, and James’s ‘Proclamation against Pirats’ did not come about until the start of 1609). Consequently, Wiggins’s suggestion of a 1610 date does seem persuasive.<br /> <br /> However, Wiggins’s protestations regarding the 1608–9 theatre closures are only relevant in terms of performance, not composition. With the theatres closed, it seems unlikely that Middleton and Dekker simply ceased writing, as they had to be ready for when the theatres were able to reopen.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, Dekker took a noticeable interest in the corn protests of 1609, as shown through his prose pamphlet ''Work for Armourers'', published in that year. Dekker takes aim at the ‘rich Farmers, Land-lords, and Graziers’ who ‘transport your corne, butter, cheese and all needfull commoditiess into other countries, of purpose to famish and impouerish these hated whining wretches’ by causing corn prices to increase ‘from foure to ten shillings a bushell,’ and then again ‘from ten to twelue shillings’ (F2v). As Taylor notes, the reference in ''The Bloody Banquet'' to ‘an angel a bushel’ (2.1.44–5) reflects Dekker’s protests about bushels increasing ‘from ten to twelue shillings’ in ''Work for Armourors''; an angel was a gold coin equalling eleven shillings (2001: 9). ''The Bloody Banquet'' might therefore also reflect Dekker’s concern with corn prices in 1609.<br /> <br /> As such, due to Dekker’s interest in the corn protests of this year, combined with the play’s reference to pirating, 1609 seems a good ‘best guess’ for composition of ''The Bloody Banquet'', even if first performance may have had to have been delayed until 1610.<br /> <br /> == Year (first printed) ==<br /> 1639. Quarto edition printed by Thomas Cotes.<br /> <br /> == Reprints (until 1700) ==<br /> None.<br /> <br /> == Authors (title-page ascription, including reprints) ==<br /> T. D.<br /> <br /> == Authors proposed (attribution scholarship) ==<br /> Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton, plus an unidentified adapter.<br /> <br /> ''The Bloody Banquet'' consists of 16 scenes, plus an Induction. The division of labour between the play’s two main collaborators and the subsequent adapter was likely as follows:<br /> <br /> Dekker: 1.1–3, 2.1–2, 2.4, and 5.1.110sd2–5.1.248sd1 (from the stage direction ‘''Thunder and lightning. A blazing star appears''’ to the play’s final ‘''Exeunt omnes''’).<br /> <br /> Middleton: 1.4, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, all of Act 4, and 5.1.1–110sd (from the beginning of the scene to the stage direction indicating that Zenarchus ‘''dies''’).<br /> <br /> Adapter: Induction, 2.5 (this scene might have been added to replace material cut from the Lapyrus plot; see below), possibly 3.2 (as this scene cannot confidently be attributed to either Middleton or Dekker), and other more minor textual alterations.<br /> <br /> == Genre ==<br /> Tragedy.<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> William Warner’s ''Pan His Syrinx'' (1584; second edition 1597). The playwrights based the play on 4 of the 7 stories featured in Warner’s book.<br /> <br /> Based on the surviving passages from the play that were included in the book ''England’s Parnassus'' in 1600, it appears that Dekker, Henry Chettle, and John Day’s earlier play ''Cupid and Psyche'' (June 1600; now lost) also served as a narrative influence (Wiggins #1247).<br /> <br /> == Auspices ==<br /> <br /> Original company undetermined. Later acquired by the King and Queen’s Young Company (aka ‘Beeston’s Boys’).<br /> <br /> == External Documentary Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Payments ===<br /> No extant records.<br /> <br /> === Stationers’ Register ===<br /> Not entered.<br /> <br /> === Title-page ascription(s) ===<br /> The ‘T. D.’ of the 1639 quarto is the only contemporary title page attribution.<br /> <br /> It is worth noting, however, that other plays by or partly by Thomas Dekker were similarly published bearing the initials ‘T. D.’, including Dekker and Middleton’s ''1 Honest Whore'' (1604).<br /> <br /> The title page of ''The Bloody Banquet'' also features a Latin motto (‘Hector adest secumque Deos in prœlia ducit’ [Then Hector appeared, bringing the gods to do battle with him] / ‘Nos hæc novimus esse nihil’ [We know these things to be nothing]); the first line is taken from Ovid’s ''Metamorphoses'', the second from Martial’s ''Epigrams''. Such Latin tags more generally are a recurring feature on the title pages of Dekker’s works, but are not unique to Dekker, and so are most suggestive in combination with other evidence for Dekker’s authorship. Interestingly, however, ‘Nos hæc novimus esse nihil’ is also quoted in the 1602 quarto of Dekker’s ''Satiromastix'' (1601), under the heading ‘Ad Detractorem’ (A2r).<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (external) ===<br /> Dekker and Middleton are known to have worked as close collaborators at many other times during their respective careers, so their co-authorship of ''The Bloody Banquet'' is not a surprising attribution. Specifically, Dekker and Middleton are recognised as the co-authors of the plays ''1 Honest Whore'' (1604), ''The Roaring Girl'' (1611), and ''The Spanish Gypsy'' (1623, with William Rowley and John Ford); the lost play ''Two Shapes'' (1602, with Michael Drayton, Anthony Munday, and John Webster); the prose works ''News from Gravesend: Sent to Nobody'' and ''The Meeting of Gallants at an Ordinary, or: The Walk in Paul’s'' (both 1604); and the multi-authored royal pageant ''The Magnificent Entertainment'' (1604), so their writing partnership is well established. When prose works and lost plays are included in the count, the number of works produced by the Dekker-Middleton partnership (seven) may well be greater than that produced by the more famous Middleton-Rowley partnership (six). (It should be noted that due to the possibility of Middleton’s part-authorship of Dekker, Ford, and Rowley’s ''The Witch of Edmonton'' (1621) the number of Middleton-Rowley collaborations could be as high as seven; however, in this case the Dekker-Middleton number would in turn rise to eight.)<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (external) ===<br /> The play was listed among 45 plays owned by William Beeston and his company (Beeston’s Boys), performing at the Cockpit, in an order issued by Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke (the Lord Chamberlain) on 10 August 1639, specifying works which other companies should not ‘intermedle wth or Act’ (Munro 2012: 164). If Beeston’s Boys was not the original company – which seems certain given that they were not formed until 1637 (Middleton died in 1627; Dekker died in 1632) – then this suggests ownership of the play must have been transferred to them from elsewhere, before mid-1639.<br /> <br /> The known history of Beeston’s Boys and their repertory suggests that they would likely have acquired the play from either the Duke of York’s (later Prince Charles’s) Men, Queen Anne’s Men, or the Children of the Queen’s Revels, all companies with whom Dekker and/or Middleton are known to have worked.<br /> <br /> === Allusions ===<br /> 13 extracts from ''The Bloody Banquet'' were included in John Cotgrave’s ''Wit’s Treasury'' in 1655, although Cotgrave never named the plays he quoted, nor the author(s) he associated with them.<br /> <br /> === Print and MS attributions ===<br /> <br /> The title page ascription to ‘T. D.’ was repeated in the play-lists of Richard Rogers and William Ley (1656) and Francis Kirkman (1661 and 1671).<br /> <br /> W. W. Greg (quoted in Schoenbaum 1961: vi) pointed out that as Kirkman is known to have been a friend of Beeston, he may have acquired information regarding the play’s authorship directly from him; however, as the 1639 quarto was already in print by the time Kirkman compiled his 1661 list, he just as likely copied the initials from that edition’s title page.<br /> <br /> Edward Archer’s play-list, appended to his copy of the 1656 quarto edition of Middleton, Rowley, and Thomas Heywood’s ''The Old Law'' (1619), attributes the play to one ‘Thomas Barker’, although this is an error Archer makes in place of Dekker’s name elsewhere in the same list, when recording Dekker’s known solo-authored plays ''Old Fortunatus'' (1599) and ''Match Me in London'' (1621).<br /> <br /> Anthony à Wood, in his c.1675–80 catalogue of the contents of Ralph Sheldon’s library, unequivocally attributes the play to Dekker (see Baugh 1918).<br /> <br /> (All of this evidence suggests Dekker as the play’s most likely author. Yet nowhere in the external evidence is there any indication of his having worked with a collaborator. However, as shown below, this is indicated by a variety of internal evidence, which has largely been identified and set forth in Lake 1975, Jackson 1979, Jackson 1998, Taylor 2000, and Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a.)<br /> <br /> == Internal Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Palaeographical evidence ===<br /> N/A.<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (internal) ===<br /> Evidence for the presence of an adapter in 2.5 is that this scene is completely unlike anything else Dekker or Middleton produced during their respective careers, most obviously with regard to the opening Chorus. This Chorus seeks to cram a lot of information into just 15 lines, and may be a rushed attempt by the adapter to replace plot content that had been removed by their cuts. In comparison, Dekker preferred to write much longer descriptive choruses (such as the 40-line Chorus that begins Act 2 of ''Old Fortunatus''), whereas Middleton more commonly crafted a distinct personality/character for his narrators (as in Raynulph’s chorus that concludes scene 2.2 of ''Hengist, King of Kent'' (1620)), a personality which is not provided in this ''Bloody Banquet'' Chorus.<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (internal) ===<br /> As the play calls for the use of props resembling severed human limbs, this could potentially indicate that the play previously belonged to Queen Anne’s Men during their affiliation with the Red Bull Theatre, as the same kind of prop also appears in Heywood’s ''The Golden Age'', which they also owned, and which was originally performed at the Red Bull in 1611 (i.e. just a year or two after ''The Bloody Banquet'' was likely first performed): ‘''A banquet brought in, with the limbs of a man in the service''’ (Gaines and Ioppolo 2023: iii, 2.2.34.1). However, in the absence of firmer evidence for ownership, this remains speculation.<br /> <br /> Internal evidence that ''The Bloody Banquet'' underwent a process of later adaptation is characteristic of several other plays acquired by Beeston’s company and included in the 1639 order. Specifically, this internal evidence for adaptation could indicate that ownership of ''The Bloody Banquet'' passed from its original company through Queen Henrietta’s Men (formed in 1625), before being acquired by Beeston’s Boys. Indeed, the 1639 Beeston’s Boys order includes 4 other plays known to have been adapted for performance by Queen Henrietta’s Men:<br /> <br /> * Heywood’s ''The Rape of Lucrece'' (1607-8), revised with the addition of new songs and performed by Queen Henrietta’s Men on 30 July 1628.<br /> * Rowley’s ''Cupid’s Vagaries'' (c.1611, now lost), for which Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert was paid a licencing fee of £1 by Christopher Beeston on 15 August 1633. Christopher Beeston was responsible for the formation of Queen Henrietta’s Men, so this payment is a probable indicator of ownership by them.<br /> * George Chapman’s ''Chabot, Admiral of France'' (c.1612), licensed by Herbert on 29 April 1635, and listed as performed by Queen Henrietta’s Men on the title page of the 1639 quarto (which, like the 1639 ''Bloody Banquet'' quarto, was printed by Thomas Cotes).<br /> * John Fletcher’s ''The Night Walker'' (c.1615), a version of which was licenced by Herbert for performance by Queen Henrietta’s Men on 11 May 1633.<br /> <br /> Christopher Beeston, manager of Queen Henrietta’s Men, was the father of William Beeston, manager of Beeston’s Boys, and both companies performed at the Cockpit, so the internal evidence for adaptation in ''The Bloody Banquet'' may well lead us to consider Queen Henrietta’s Men as possible previous owners of the play. Furthermore, of the known companies related to these 4 plays, ''The Rape of Lucrece'' was originally a property of Queen Anne’s Men and ''Cupid’s Vagaries'' was originally a property of the Duke of York’s Men, both of which fit the known acquisition practices of Beeston’s Boys.<br /> <br /> Of the 4 plays known to have been acquired by Beeston’s Boys from Queen Henrietta’s Men, 3 (''Cupid’s Vagaries''; ''Chabot, Admiral of France''; ''The Night Walker'') are known through both external and internal evidence to have been adapted by James Shirley. Given the possible association with Queen Henrietta’s Men, it is tempting to consider Shirley a candidate for the otherwise unidentified adapter of ''The Bloody Banquet'', although this supposition will require further investigation.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, in 1640 two playwrights associated with Beeston, Richard Brome and Thomas Nabbes, separately complained about the abridgement of their texts for performance (Bentley 1971: 236-7). This indicates an apparent preference for shorter plays on the part of Beeston, and Beeston’s willingness to commission cuts to pre-existing texts might explain further why the surviving version of ''The Bloody Banquet'' is shorter than any other play by Dekker or Middleton (except, in Middleton’s case, ''The Nice Valour'' (1622), although this work was published more than two decades after its original performances, and is itself likely a text that has undergone adaptation).<br /> <br /> It is worth noting here that the quarto text’s use of act/scene divisions that are clumsily imposed upon the text after 5.1.110 (creating a false scene break into 5.1 and a non-existent ‘5.2’; see below) suggests that the copy of the play that lies behind the quarto may have had its act/scene divisions imposed onto it sometime after its original performance. Indeed, if the play was originally performed at an outdoor theatre (like the Red Bull) it would not have used act divisions (see Taylor 1993), but these would have been added into the play when it transferred to an indoor theatre (the Cockpit). The problematic split in the middle of 5.1 could be evidence of later act/scene divisions added into the text as part of a textual restructuring undertaken following the larger process of adaptation. Claire Kimball and Charlene V. Smith have pointed out that the encounter between Tymethes and the Young Queen in 4.3 benefits from the application of pitch darkness that would have been made possible by performance in an indoor playhouse (Kimball and Smith 2024: forthcoming), in similar vein to a ‘dark scene’ in Webster’s Blackfriars play ''The Duchess of Malfi'' (1614); if so, it might indicate that something in the dramaturgy of this scene might also have been altered by the play’s adapter, if the play were transported from an outdoor playhouse to the indoor Cockpit.<br /> <br /> === Metrical evidence ===<br /> In scenes attributed to Dekker, 6 out of 174 rhymes are feminine (3.4%). In scenes attributed to Middleton, 28 out of 208 are feminine (13.5%). The significant split in the frequency of feminine rhymes between these differently attributed scenes provides strong evidence that they are indeed the product of two different hands. Furthermore, these rates seem appropriately Dekkerian and Middletonian respectively (Taylor 2000: 219).<br /> <br /> 1.3.8–9 (‘Stop her mouth first. Soldiers must have their sport. / ’Tis dearly earned; they venture their blood for’t’), attributed to Dekker, employs the same ‘sport/for[’]t’ rhyme as is also found in both Dekker’s ''2 Honest Whore'' (1605) at 4.1.311–12 (‘Common? as spotted Leopards, whom for sport / Men hunt, to get the flesh, but care not for’t’) and ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' at 2.1.121–3 (‘S’bloud if we tosse not them, hang’s agen: a fort / We ha built without, and mand it, this was the sport’). Additionally the ‘ill[s]/pill[s]’ rhyme of 1.3.5–6 (‘Earth, stretch thy throat: take down this bitter pill, / Loathing the hateful taste of his own ill’) also features in Dekker’s ''2 Honest Whore'' at 5.2.488–9 (‘all your Ills / Are cleare purged from you by his working pills’).<br /> <br /> === Chronological evidence ===<br /> All act and scene divisions in the surviving version of the play are presented logically in sequence, apart from one false scene division in the Cotes quarto that occurs after what is given as line 5.1.110 in the ''Oxford Middleton'' edition. This may be suggestive of two hands working in collaboration in the manuscript that was being consulted by the printer, with the change in author being misinterpreted as a division between 5.1 and an unintended ‘5.2’. 5.1 seems to be the only ‘co-authored’ scene in the play (at least, of the scenes that can be confidently attributed).<br /> <br /> The difficulty in attributing 3.2 to either Dekker or Middleton may support evidence of adaptation, when the position of 3.2 between 3.1 and 3.3 is considered. If an adapter had removed material from the Lapyrus plot that fell between 3.1 and 3.3, they would have to have replaced that material with a new scene, so as not to violate the so-called ‘law of re-entry’. Furthermore, as this scene stylistically cannot have been by Middleton, if it were by Dekker it would be his only contribution to the Tymethes plot in the entire play (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a: 365).<br /> <br /> === Vocabulary ===<br /> Many of Middleton’s favoured contractions are present in this play and constitute suggestive evidence for his part-authorship. One rare occurrence in the quarto text is ''Sh’had'' (1.1.75); this occurs 6 times in the Middleton canon, but is rare elsewhere. ''I’m'' is used 13 times, ''I’d'' twice, ''ne’er'' 18 times, ''e’en'' thrice, and ''y’'' 6 times, and ''’t'' contractions appear 34 times. Furthermore, ''h’as'' and ''’tad'' each appear once (Jackson 1979: 114–15). The abbreviation ''’em'', often used by Middleton, is not common in the text of ''The Bloody Banquet'', but does appear in the Middleton-ascribed scenes 1.4, 3.3, and 4.3. ''T’abuse'' appears at 5.1.27 and five other times in Middleton (''The Widow'' (1615), 1.1.192; ''The Witch'' (1616), 4.2.101 and 5.1.66; ''Hengist, King of Kent'', 4.2.27; and ''The Nice Valour'', 5.3.126), but never in Dekker.<br /> <br /> === Oaths and interjections ===<br /> A possibly Dekkerian oath, ''s’nails'' (meaning ‘by God’s nails), occurs at 2.2.27, but many other dramatists are known to have used this oath, meaning it does not constitute strong evidence for Dekker’s presence on its own (Lake: 238).<br /> <br /> At 1.4.127 and 2.3.28, we find the oath ''mass'', one Middleton is known to have been fond of using. At 1.4.149 and 2.3.55 we find ''s’foote'', another Middletonian oath, and at 1.4.176 ''hum'', an exclamation very uncommon outside of Middleton.<br /> <br /> Most tellingly in the case of oaths and other expletives, of the 39 expletives known to be more common to Middleton that to any other early modern playwright, 19 appear in ''The Bloody Banquet''; this high rate is only surpassed by one other play, Nathan Field’s ''Amends for Ladies'' (1610), although it is worth noting that this play is itself 22% longer than the extant version of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Taylor 2000: 207). The Middletonian expletives that appear in ''The Bloody Banquet'' are ''troth'', ''by this light'', ''i’faith'', ''faith'', ''by my faith'', ''mass'', ''by my troth'', ''by the mass'', ''s’foot'', ''puh'', ''why le/law you now'', ''pish'', ''hist'', ''whist'', ''death'', ''pox on'', ''pox of'', ''prithee'', ''how now'', ''I warrant'', ''hum'', and ''and by this hand''.<br /> <br /> Of these, Jackson observed that the play’s author made use of ''puh'' and ''why law you now'' 11 times, and noted that ''la'' or ''law'' is very common in Jacobean drama, but immediately preceding it with ''why'' or following it with ''you'' is much less common, and ''why la''[''w''] ''you'' is a very rare formulation, except as an indicator of Middleton’s authorship. Jackson found in 4,000 plays only 5 with both ''puh'' and ''why la''[''w''] ''you'': ''The Bloody Banquet'' and 4 established Middleton plays, these being ''The Puritan'' (1606), ''1 Honest Whore'', ''No Wit, No Help Like a Woman’s'' (1611), and ''Wit at Several Weapons'' (1613). Furthermore, ''my troth'' can only be found in 7 plays: ''The Phoenix'' (1604), ''Michaelmas Term'' (1604), ''A Trick to Catch the Old One'' (1605), ''A Mad World, My Masters'' (1605), ''The Puritan'', ''Wit at Several Weapons'', and Shakespeare’s ''Coriolanus'' (1608), the latter being the only non-Middleton example (1998: 4).<br /> <br /> Additionally, ''a murren on you'' or ''a murren on them'' is an unusual oath formulation in the extant corpus of early modern drama, but it also appears in Middleton’s ''Hengist, King of Kent'' at 5.1.263. Similarly, ''a murren meet ’em'' appears in ''A Mad World, My Masters'' at 2.6.77, and ''The Revenger’s Tragedy'' (1606) at 3.6.84 (Holdsworth 1994). Dekker, however, does use ''how a murrain'' in ''The Shoemaker’s Holiday'' (1599) at 4.2.48 (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007b: 366), although this resembles the Middleton parallels markedly less.<br /> <br /> The oath ''s’light'' also appears in Middleton’s ''The Widow'' and ''Your Five Gallants'' (1607).<br /> <br /> === Linguistic evidence ===<br /> One stand-out piece of evidence regarding Middletonian spellings has been pointed out in Taylor and Lavagnino, namely that ‘trechery’ (4.3.240) and ‘trecher’ (4.3.257) parallel Middleton’s spellings of these words in his 1624 play ''A Game at Chess'' (at 4.4.14 and 4.2.8 respectively) (2007a: 367).<br /> <br /> At 1.1.45, we find the same kind of alliteration between '''‘'''devil’ and ‘duke[dom]’ as can also be found to occur in ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''. Compare ''The Bloody Banquet''’s ‘The devil! The dukedom, the kingdom, Lydia’ with ''The Revenger’s Tragedy’s'' ‘Ay, to the devil. – To th’ Duke, by my faith’ (2.1.202).<br /> <br /> === Stage directions ===<br /> In similar fashion to the conclusion of ''The Bloody Banquet'', an ecclesiastically-disguised character (and more specifically, a ‘good’ character) also appears in the final scenes of Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' and ''The Noble Spanish Soldier'' (1622), and Dekker and Middleton’s ''1 Honest Whore''. Crucially, this is not a plot detail found in the Warner source material, and so was evidently an invention of the dramatist(s). In this light, its incorporation into the play’s narrative seems remarkably Dekkerian.<br /> <br /> The speech prefix ‘Omn.’ (at 1.1.2) is very rare in Middleton, appearing only once each in ''Hengist, King of Kent'', ''Women Beware Women'' (1621), and ''The Nice Valour''. However, ‘Omnes’ as a speech prefix is common in Dekker, appearing multiple times in several of his solo-authored plays: ''Blurt, Master Constable'' (1601); ''Satiromastix''; ''2 Honest Whore''; ''The Whore of Babylon'' (1606); and ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It''.<br /> <br /> The stage direction that opens 3.3, ‘''Enter Roxano leading Tymethes. Mazeres meets them''’ (3.3.0sd) bears a telling Middletonian characteristic, specifically the formulation ‘''Enter A meeting B''’ or ''Enter A. B meets A''’, a style of entry direction that is unique to Middleton. The fact that this entry direction describes ‘''Roxano leading Tymethes''’ along what Tymethes calls a ‘blind pilgrimage’ (3.3.1) also resembles the opening stage direction of 3.1 of Middleton’s ''The'' ''Witch'': ‘''Enter Duchess, leading Almachildes blindfold''’ (3.1.0sd).<br /> <br /> The use of a ‘''blazing star''’ in the stage direction at 5.1.110sd2 resembles Dekker’s use of such imagery in ''2 Honest Whore'' 4.2.52, but this image appears frequently in the works of Middleton, most famously in ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''.<br /> <br /> Another interesting feature that may be indicative of Middletonian dramaturgy is the application of two banqueting scenes (3.3 and 5.1), the latter of which is a more tragic inversion of the former (see Meads: 154–7). Such a symbolic pairing of banqueting scenes is something that dramaturgically interested Middleton (see Green: 190–1).<br /> <br /> === Verbal parallels ===<br /> A signifier of Dekker’s presence can be found early in the Cotes quarto, when the list of characters is described as a ‘Drammatis Personae’ (A1&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;) rather than i.e. ‘Names of the Persons’. This is a description common to Dekker’s works or works involving Dekker, and can be found in quartos of ''Satiromastix'', ''The Whore of Babylon'', ''The Roaring Girl'', ''The Noble Spanish Soldier'', ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' (1623), and ''The Spanish Gypsy'' (Lake: 239).<br /> <br /> There are many verbal parallels in the play’s text that can be linked to other works by Dekker. The ‘venture their blood’ imagery of 1.3.9 recalls ''The Whore of Babylon'' 5.6.19 (‘venture our owne bloud’). The connection between the words ‘dear’ and ‘earn’ (‘’Tis dearly earned’, 1.3.9) also appears in ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' 2.1.173 (‘hee that dearest earnes his bread’) and 4.4.11 (‘At how deere rate the careles world does earne’). Lapyrus’s line at 1.3.5-6 (‘Earth, stretch thy throat: take down this bitter pill, / Loathing the hateful taste of his own ill’) also recalls the language of Dekker: in ''The Whore of Babylon'' 5.4.12-13 we find ‘fifty Canons throats, / Stretcht wide’; ‘take […] this bitter pill’ recalls ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' 2.1.87-8 (‘Even in this bitter pill (for me) so you / Would play but my Phisician, and say, take it’); and ‘loath[ing] […] taste’ recalls ''Old Fortunatus'' 4.1.140 (‘thy gifts I loath to tast’). Of this last point of comparison, a juxtaposition between ‘taste’ and ‘hate’ within 4 words also appears in ''2 Honest Whore'' 1.2.159 (‘he taught her first to taste poison; I hate her for her selfe’).<br /> <br /> Another interesting point is the speech at 1.3.19-23, with its focus on prayers for soldiers, a concern also expressed by Dekker in his ''Four Birds of Noah’s Ark'' (1609).<br /> <br /> Similar Middleton parallels in the play include ‘Right oracle!’ (1.4.25), which recalls ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''’s ‘’Tis oracle’ (4.1.89), where in both senses ‘oracle’ means ‘absolute truth’, and ‘Heart of ill fortune!’ (4.1.45), which strikingly resembles ‘Heart, of chance’ (6.4) in ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' (1605).<br /> <br /> ‘I never knew the force of a desire / Until this minute’ (1.4.42) resembles ''The Revenger’s Tragedy'' 2.2.34-5 (‘I never thought their sex had been a wonder / Until this minute’), ''Wit at Several Weapons'' 1.1.210 (‘I never beheld comeliness till this minute’), and ''A Mad World, My Masters'' 4.5.17-19 (‘I ne’er knew / At which end to begin to affect a woman / Till this bewitching minute’).<br /> <br /> ‘Favours are grown to custom ’twixt ’em both: / Letters, close banquets, whisperings, private meetings’ (4.1.32) recalls what Taylor calls Middleton’s fondness for ‘catalogues of debauchery’ (Taylor 2001: 209), as in ''A Trick to Catch the Old One'' 5.2.172-3 (‘All secret friends and private meetings, / Close-borne letters and bawds’ greetings’).<br /> <br /> === Image clusters ===<br /> <br /> The line ‘As your son and heir at his father’s funeral’ (1.4.2) recalls Middleton’s fondness for jokes surrounding imagery of a father’s death, which are also made use of in ''The Puritan'' 1.1 and ''The'' ''Revenger’s Tragedy'' 4.2.<br /> <br /> Middleton is also known to have identified the imagery of a padlock as something distinctly Italian, as at 1.4.29. See, for example, ''A Mad World, My Masters'' 1.2.22–3 (‘kept by the Italian under lock and key’) and ''A Chaste Maid in Cheapside'' (1613) 4.4.4–5 (‘padlocks, father; the Venetian uses it’).<br /> <br /> Holdsworth (1994) has drawn attention to the rareness of the image of a person in wax at 2.1.62–3 (‘my young prodigal first in wax’), but which is similar to imagery found in ''Michaelmas Term'' 4.1.45–6 and ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' 1.51–2. Dekker does use a comparable image in ''Lantern and Candlelight'' (1608), but unlike in the Middleton parallels does not use the specific phrase ‘in wax’ (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a: 367).<br /> <br /> The reference to a ‘sea-wolf’ (i.e. a pirate) at 2.1.68 connects the play to all three of the Middleton plays that can be dated to 1611, just a year or two after the composition of ''The Bloody Banquet'': piratical imagery appears in ''The Roaring Girl'', ''The Lady’s Tragedy'', and ''No Wit, No Help Like a Woman’s''.<br /> <br /> Imagery connecting the ideas of sport and soldiers (‘Soldiers must have their sport’, 1.3.8) also appears in Dekker’s ''The Whore of Babylon'' 4.3.26 (‘tis the souldiers sport’) and ''2 Honest Whore'' 4.1.286–8 (‘Soldiers fight for them […] Thus (for sport sake)’).<br /> <br /> The Tyrant’s use of a metaphor about bees at 1.1.26–7 (‘so unload victory’s honey thighs / To let drones feed’) recalls a similar bee-based metaphor used by a villainous character in Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' (1.3.162–8).<br /> <br /> Another potential Dekkerian image is the combination of widows and orphans as an emotional image, as can be found at 2.1.5 (‘devour a widow and three orphans’), and which is also used by Dekker in ''The Raven’s Almanac'' (1609).<br /> <br /> In Dekker, Chettle, and William Haughton’s ''Patient Grissel'' (1599), Dekker writes a passage in which Grissel is prevented from breastfeeding her two new-born babies (4.1.123–4), which may be recalled in the description of the Old Queen and her famished infants (2.2.9–10).<br /> <br /> Finally, the use of wolf imagery in a discussion about strength versus weakness (2.1.74–6) can also be found in Dekker’s ''Match Me in London'' at 4.1.58–66.<br /> <br /> == Critical Debate ==<br /> E. H. C. Oliphant was the first to propose Dekker and Middleton as co-authors of the play, in a ''Times Literary Supplement'' article of 1925, and his argument was subsequently endorsed by Gerald J. Eberle in 1948 (725). Oliphant’s analysis was not widely accepted at first, however, despite the fact that, to quote Taylor, Oliphant ‘was the key figure in redefining the Middleton canon in the twentieth century, and almost all of his attributions have been accepted and confirmed by subsequent scholars’ (Taylor 2000: 198). Indeed, in the 1950s Samuel Schoenbaum dismissed Oliphant as having ‘failed to make a convincing case’ regarding the play’s authorship (1955: 226), and Gerald Eades Bentley was even more scornful, stating that ‘The case for Dekker and Middleton is based mostly on parallels and repeated words and phrases – the flimsiest kind of “evidence”’ (1956: iii, 282–3). David J. Lake (1975: 239–41) and MacDonald P. Jackson (1979: 113–16), however, did take the Dekker-Middleton attribution more seriously, and although at the time they considered it far from proven – to quote Jackson’s later words on the matter, at the time they were both ‘non-committal’ (1998: 4) – most scholars now accept ''The Bloody Banquet'' to be a collaborative work by Dekker and Middleton; Jackson later substantially revised his opinion, stating that ‘It is clear to me now that those links are so strong as to constitute virtual proof that Oliphant was right’ (1998: 4). In 2007 the play was included as part of the ''Oxford Middleton'', in a text edited by Taylor and Julia Gasper (2007b: 637-69), thus enshrining the play in print as part of the Middleton canon for the very first time; the play had previously been excluded from the Middleton collected works of Alexander Dyce (1840) and A. H. Bullen (1885–7), both of which were published long before Oliphant’s analysis.<br /> <br /> Other possible alternative authors have been proposed over the years, although each has seen far less scholarly acceptance. One alternative candidate, promoted by Frederick Gard Fleay, was Thomas Drue (or Drew), the only other known playwright from the time to have the initials ‘T. D.’ (1891: i, 162). However, both Lake and Jackson ruled Drue out in their stylistic analyses of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Lake: 233–4; Jackson 1979: 113–16). Drue is the author of only one other acknowledged play that survives to this day, ''The Duchess of Suffolk'' (1624), so an attribution of ''The Bloody Banquet'' to Drue could be argued to bring with it little critical enlightenment.<br /> <br /> Additionally, David Erskine Baker suggested Robert Davenport as the play’s author on the basis that ''The Bloody Banquet'' is listed after several Davenport plays in Herbert‘s list, the argument thus being that the ‘T. D.’ on the 1639 title page was a mistake for ‘R. D.’ (1812: 61). However, this argument is no more persuasive than someone in favour of Middleton’s authorship saying, conversely, that ‘T. D.’ is a mistake for ‘T. M.’ The Davenport theory was nevertheless later revived by James G. McManaway, although he largely based this argument on the fact that the ‘Hector adest secumque Deos in prœlia ducit’ motto on ''The Bloody Banquet''’s title page also appears on the manuscript of the anonymous play ''Dick of Devonshire'' (1626-7), which McManaway (on little evidence) also attributed to Davenport (1946: 34). McManaway claimed to have found ‘considerable internal evidence that [''The Bloody Banquet''] and ''Dick of Devonshire'' are from the same pen, and that the writer was indeed Robert Davenport’ (35), but he did not proceed to provide this supposed evidence. Davenport’s authorship of ''Dick of Devonshire'' is no longer supported in present-day scholarship; indeed, Heywood is believed to be a much more likely candidate (see e.g. Long 2014; Greatley-Hirsch, Pangallo, and White 2024).<br /> <br /> == Critical Commentary ==<br /> The authorship of 3.2 is uncertain. The scene displays Dekker’s fondness for ''hath'' over ''has'', and this form of the word occurs twice in this short scene; however, ''hath'' was a popular form used by many other dramatists, so is not necessarily a strong indicator of Dekker’s authorship specifically, and could just as easily be the preference of the play’s adapter. In the absence of firmer evidence, the author of 3.2 remains undetermined. However, as with many surviving early modern plays published many years after their original composition and performance, the presence of an adapting hand in ''The Bloody Banquet'' seems incredibly likely.<br /> <br /> Given its relatively short length, it is generally agreed that the Cotes quarto reproduces an abridged text of the play, something we know was a theatrical practice undertaken by Beeston’s company (see above). Schoenbaum (1961: vii-viii) observed numerous curiosities in the text that are at the very least suggestive of significant cutting and other forms of alteration. These include (I hear indicate cut material using &lt; &gt;):<br /> <br /> * A line seemingly lost at Induction.Chorus.11 (‘This Lord Lapyrus entertained and welcomed / By &lt; &gt;, / But chiefly by the fair Eurymone’).<br /> * Further lines possibly removed from 1.1.154–5 (‘Or if for larger bounties &lt; &gt; I was mad’), 4.3.106-8 (‘Had any warning fast’ned on thy senses, / &lt; &gt; / Rash, unadvisèd youth, whom my soul weeps for’), and 5.1.13–16 (although in this case such a cut is not noted in the ''Oxford Middleton'' text).<br /> * An incomplete line at 1.4.29 (‘Italian padlocks, &lt; &gt;’).<br /> * Sextorio and Lodovicus being named as such in the ‘Drammatis Personae’ and in 1.1, but then becoming ‘Sertorio’ and ‘Lodovico’ in Acts 4 and 5.<br /> * Armatrites being named as such in speech prefixes throughout 1.1, but becoming simply ‘Tyrant’ from then on.<br /> * The Young Queen claiming ‘I speak strange words against my fantasy’ at 1.4.66, despite having done no such thing.<br /> * The Old King of Lydia saying ‘On thee, ''Lapyrus'', and thy treacheries, fall / The heavy burden of an old man’s curse’ at 1.1.69–70, and calling him an ‘Inhuman monster!’ at 2.4.3, but then easily forgiving him just 9 lines later (‘Set all our hands to help him. – Come, good man’, 2.4.12) with no clear indication as to why. This differs substantially from the Warner source material.<br /> * The King of Lycia, Zantippus, and Eurymone being afforded noteworthy status by being listed in the play’s ‘Drammatis Personae’, but only appearing in the dumb show of the Induction.<br /> <br /> Most striking, however, is a change in the play’s narratives after Act 2. As Schoenbaum noted, in Acts 1 and 2 the playwrights establish the story of the Young Queen, Tymethes, and the Tyrant in 3 scenes, while 5 are devoted to the tale of the Old Queen, Lapyrus, and the King. After this, the latter story is not picked up again until the final scene, when they appear disguised as pilgrims. It is never explained why they are dressed in such a fashion or from where they acquired such garments, suggesting a significant amount of subplot material may have been removed from the play by an adapting hand. Acts 2, 3, and 5 are also markedly short in comparison with Acts 1 and 4, which may be further evidence of substantial cutting; if the respective lengths of Acts 1 and 4 were replicated throughout the play, ''The Bloody Banquet'' would be of an average length for drama of the period, so the play’s brevity is seemingly a consequence of the unusual shortness of Acts 2, 3, and 5. It thus appears that the adapter considered material from the Lapyrus plot the most worthy of being dispensed with.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, given the amount of scenes focusing on the Lapyrus plot in Act 1 compared with amount of scenes dedicated to the Tymethes plot in the same Act, it is possible that the importance of the plots has been reversed in the extant version of the play. Whereas now the Lapyrus plot appears to be something of a subplot, in the original version the story of Lapyrus might have been the majority focus, with the Tymethes plot taking subplot status. While the play’s title, ''The Bloody Banquet'', clearly relates to the Tymethes plot, this was not necessarily the title of the play under which it was originally performed in c.1609 (and in any case, plays did sometimes take their titles from their subplot).<br /> <br /> == Further Thoughts ==<br /> <br /> == Works Cited ==<br /> Barroll, Leeds (1991), ''Politics, Plague, and Shakespeare’s Theater: The Stuart Years'' (New York: Cornell University Press).<br /> <br /> Baker, David Erskine (1812), ''Biographia Dramatica, or, A Companion to the Playhouse'' (Dublin: T. Henshall).<br /> <br /> Baugh, Albert C. (1918), ‘A Seventeenth Century Play-List’, ''Modern Language Review'' (13), 401–11.<br /> <br /> Bentley, Gerald Eades (1956), ''The Jacobean and Caroline Stage'', vol. iii (Oxford: Clarendon Press).<br /> <br /> Bentley, Gerald Eades (1971), ''The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s Time'' (Princeton: Princeton University Press).<br /> <br /> Bowers, Fredson, ed. (1953–61), ''The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker'', 4 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). All quotations from the works of Dekker are from this edition.<br /> <br /> Eberle, Gerald J. (1948), ‘Dekker’s Part in ''The Family of Love''’, in James G. McManaway, Giles E. Dawson, and Edwin E. Willoughby (eds), ''Joseph Quincy Adams Memorial Studies'' (Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library), 723–38.<br /> <br /> Fleay, Frederick Gard (1891), ''A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama 1559–1642'', vol. i (London: Reeves and Turner).<br /> <br /> Gaines, Barry, and Grace Ioppolo, eds (2023), ''The Collected Works of Thomas Heywood'', vol. iii (Oxford: Oxford University Press).<br /> <br /> Greatley-Hirsch, Brett, Matteo Pangallo, and Rachel White (2024), ‘“Text up his name”: The Authorship of the Manuscript Play ''Dick of Devonshire’, Studies in Philology'' (121), forthcoming.<br /> <br /> Green, William David (2020), ‘“Such Violent Hands”: The Theme of Cannibalism and the Implications of Authorship in the 1623 Text of ''Titus Andronicus''’, ''Exchanges'' (7), 182–99.<br /> <br /> Holdsworth, R. V. (1994), ‘A Middleton Oath in ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' and ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Notes and Queries'' (239), 70.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. (1998), ‘Editing, Attribution Studies, and “Literature Online”: A New Resource for Research in Renaissance Drama’, ''Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama'' (37), 1–15.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. (1979), ''Studies in Attribution: Middleton and Shakespeare'' (Salzburg: Universität Salzberg.<br /> <br /> Kimball, Claire, and Charlene V. Smith (2024), ‘''The Bloody Banquet'' in Performance’, in William David Green, Anna L. Hegland, and Sam Jermy, eds, ''The Theatrical Legacy of Thomas Middleton, 1624–2024'' (London: Routledge). Forthcoming.<br /> <br /> Lake, David J. (1975), ''The Canon of Thomas Middleton’s Plays: Internal Evidence for the Major Problems of Authorship'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).<br /> <br /> Long, William B. (2014), ‘Playhouse Shadows: The Manuscript Behind ''Dick of Devonshire''’, ''Early Theatre'' (17), 146–68.<br /> <br /> McManaway, James G. (1946), ‘Latin Title Page Mottoes as a Clue to Dramatic Authorship’, ''The Library'' (26), 28–36.<br /> <br /> Meads, Chris (2001), ''Banquets Set Forth: Banqueting in English Renaissance Drama'' (Manchester: Manchester University Press).<br /> <br /> Munro, Lucy (2012), ‘Middleton and Caroline Theatre’, in Gary Taylor and Trish Thomas Henley, eds, ''The Oxford Handbook of Thomas Middleton'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 164–80.<br /> <br /> Oliphant, E. H. C. (1925), ‘''The Bloodie Banquet'', A Dekker-Middleton Play’, ''Times Literary Supplement'' (17 December), 882.<br /> <br /> Schoenbaum, Samuel, ed. (1961), ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Oxford: Malone Society Reprints).<br /> <br /> Schoenbaum, Samuel (1955), ''Middleton’s Tragedies: A Critical Study'' (New York: Columbia University Press).<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (2001), ‘Gender, Hunger, Horror: The History and Significance of ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies'' (1), 1–45.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (1993), ‘The Structure of Performance: Act-Intervals in the London Theatres, 1576-1642’, in John Jowett and Gary Taylor, eds, ''Shakespeare Reshaped, 1606-1623'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 3–50.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (2000), ‘Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'' (94), 197–233.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary, and John Lavagnino, eds (2007a), ''Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture: A Companion to the Collected Works'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press).<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary, and John Lavagnino, eds (2007b), ''Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press). All quotations from ''The Bloody Banquet'' and other works by Middleton are from this edition.<br /> [[category:1609]]<br /> [[category:Middleton,_Thomas]]<br /> [[category:Dekker,_Thomas]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by William David Green; updated on 24 March 2023.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Green, William David]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=File:Bloodiebanquettr00tdac0013.jpg&diff=1211 2023-04-06T17:03:02Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Title page of 1639 Quarto</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Bloody_Banquet,_The&diff=1210 2023-04-06T14:46:07Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Added Green's entry</p> <hr /> <div>== Year (composition) ==<br /> The date of composition remains uncertain, but probably falls within the range 1608-10.<br /> <br /> In Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino’s companion to the 2007 ''Collected Works of Middleton'' (colloquially known as ''The Oxford Middleton''), a date of 1608–9 is given (2007a: 364). Stylistic evidence is offered showing that versification and verbal parallels in the shares of both authors indicate a date of composition at the end of the first decade of the seventeenth century. As pointed out elsewhere by Taylor, whereas Dekker’s rate of rhymed lines as proportionate to lines of verse follows no clear pattern, Middleton’s rate began clearly dropping after the composition of ''A Mad World, My Masters'' in 1605: the rate in the Middleton scenes of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (21%) places that play within Middleton’s 1605–11 range (2001: 4–5). Their other evidence for dating is also taken from Taylor’s analysis, specifically: references to court drunkenness (2.1.37–41), which would have been particularly topical in light of the Jacobean court’s reputation for drunkenness, particularly after 1606 (2001: 8); references to a dearth in harvests (2.1.43–6; 2.2.2–10), which would be topical in 1608-9 due to the high corn prices of those years leading to rioting in England (2001: 8–9); and an apparent reference to pirates (2.1.70–3), which would have been particularly topical from 1609 onward, following King James I’s ‘Proclamation against Pirats’ of 8 January 1609 (2001: 10). From this convergence of evidence, 1608-9 arises as the most plausible date range for the ''Oxford Middleton'' editors.<br /> <br /> In his entry for ''The Bloody Banquet'' in ''British Drama, 1533-1642: A Catalogue'' (#1624), Martin Wiggins (in association with Catherine Richardson) pushes this slightly later, to 1610, observing that 1608–9 is ‘inherently less plausible owing to theatre closures in those years’. Wiggins notes that the reference to Lapyrus as the ‘devil in the vault’ (2.2.36) associates him with a description often applied to Guy Fawkes, suggesting that the play must at the very least post-date the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot in November 1605, but he also points out that there were a cluster of such allusions in 1610-11, including, perhaps most relevantly, in Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton’s ''The Roaring Girl'' (1611) and Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' (1611).<br /> <br /> Although Dekkerian/Middletonian recollections of the Gunpowder Plot in 1610-11 do not preclude the authors from also having had such an interest in 1608-9, the fact that the theatres were closed due to plague for the entirety of 1609 (Barroll 1991: 173, 178–86) does significantly reduce the likelihood of that being ''The Bloody Banquet''’s year of first performance. Additionally, in 1608 the theatres were open between April and June, but (aside from part of July) were closed for the rest of that year (Barroll 1991: 173); apart from the reference to Jacobean courtly drunkenness, April-July 1608 seems slightly too early for the strongest topical allusions identified above to receive a particularly powerful audience reaction (as the public response to corn prices was only just beginning, and James’s ‘Proclamation against Pirats’ did not come about until the start of 1609). Consequently, Wiggins’s suggestion of a 1610 date does seem persuasive.<br /> <br /> However, Wiggins’s protestations regarding the 1608–9 theatre closures are only relevant in terms of performance, not composition. With the theatres closed, it seems unlikely that Middleton and Dekker simply ceased writing, as they had to be ready for when the theatres were able to reopen.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, Dekker took a noticeable interest in the corn protests of 1609, as shown through his prose pamphlet ''Work for Armourers'', published in that year. Dekker takes aim at the ‘rich Farmers, Land-lords, and Graziers’ who ‘transport your corne, butter, cheese and all needfull commoditiess into other countries, of purpose to famish and impouerish these hated whining wretches’ by causing corn prices to increase ‘from foure to ten shillings a bushell,’ and then again ‘from ten to twelue shillings’ (F2v). As Taylor notes, the reference in ''The Bloody Banquet'' to ‘an angel a bushel’ (2.1.44–5) reflects Dekker’s protests about bushels increasing ‘from ten to twelue shillings’ in ''Work for Armourors''; an angel was a gold coin equalling eleven shillings (2001: 9). ''The Bloody Banquet'' might therefore also reflect Dekker’s concern with corn prices in 1609.<br /> <br /> As such, due to Dekker’s interest in the corn protests of this year, combined with the play’s reference to pirating, 1609 seems a good ‘best guess’ for composition of ''The Bloody Banquet'', even if first performance may have had to have been delayed until 1610.<br /> <br /> == Year (first printed) ==<br /> 1639. Quarto edition printed by Thomas Cotes.<br /> <br /> == Reprints (until 1700) ==<br /> None.<br /> <br /> == Authors (title-page ascription, including reprints) ==<br /> T. D.<br /> <br /> == Authors proposed (attribution scholarship) ==<br /> Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton, plus an unidentified adapter.<br /> <br /> ''The Bloody Banquet'' consists of 16 scenes, plus an Induction. The division of labour between the play’s two main collaborators and the subsequent adapter was likely as follows:<br /> <br /> Dekker: 1.1–3, 2.1–2, 2.4, and 5.1.110sd2–5.1.248sd1 (from the stage direction ‘''Thunder and lightning. A blazing star appears''’ to the play’s final ‘''Exeunt omnes''’).<br /> <br /> Middleton: 1.4, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, all of Act 4, and 5.1.1–110sd (from the beginning of the scene to the stage direction indicating that Zenarchus ‘''dies''’).<br /> <br /> Adapter: Induction, 2.5 (this scene might have been added to replace material cut from the Lapyrus plot; see below), possibly 3.2 (as this scene cannot confidently be attributed to either Middleton or Dekker), and other more minor textual alterations.<br /> <br /> == Genre ==<br /> Tragedy.<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> William Warner’s ''Pan His Syrinx'' (1584; second edition 1597). The playwrights based the play on 4 of the 7 stories featured in Warner’s book.<br /> <br /> Based on the surviving passages from the play that were included in the book ''England’s Parnassus'' in 1600, it appears that Dekker, Henry Chettle, and John Day’s earlier play ''Cupid and Psyche'' (June 1600; now lost) also served as a narrative influence (Wiggins #1247).<br /> <br /> == Auspices ==<br /> <br /> Original company undetermined. Later acquired by the King and Queen’s Young Company (aka ‘Beeston’s Boys’).<br /> <br /> == External Documentary Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Payments ===<br /> No extant records.<br /> <br /> === Stationers’ Register ===<br /> Not entered.<br /> <br /> === Title-page ascription(s) ===<br /> The ‘T. D.’ of the 1639 quarto is the only contemporary title page attribution.<br /> <br /> It is worth noting, however, that other plays by or partly by Thomas Dekker were similarly published bearing the initials ‘T. D.’, including Dekker and Middleton’s ''1 Honest Whore'' (1604).<br /> <br /> The title page of ''The Bloody Banquet'' also features a Latin motto (‘Hector adest secumque Deos in prœlia ducit’ [Then Hector appeared, bringing the gods to do battle with him] / ‘Nos hæc novimus esse nihil’ [We know these things to be nothing]); the first line is taken from Ovid’s ''Metamorphoses'', the second from Martial’s ''Epigrams''. Such Latin tags more generally are a recurring feature on the title pages of Dekker’s works, but are not unique to Dekker, and so are most suggestive in combination with other evidence for Dekker’s authorship. Interestingly, however, ‘Nos hæc novimus esse nihil’ is also quoted in the 1602 quarto of Dekker’s ''Satiromastix'' (1601), under the heading ‘Ad Detractorem’ (A2r).<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (external) ===<br /> Dekker and Middleton are known to have worked as close collaborators at many other times during their respective careers, so their co-authorship of ''The Bloody Banquet'' is not a surprising attribution. Specifically, Dekker and Middleton are recognised as the co-authors of the plays ''1 Honest Whore'' (1604), ''The Roaring Girl'' (1611), and ''The Spanish Gypsy'' (1623, with William Rowley and John Ford); the lost play ''Two Shapes'' (1602, with Michael Drayton, Anthony Munday, and John Webster); the prose works ''News from Gravesend: Sent to Nobody'' and ''The Meeting of Gallants at an Ordinary, or: The Walk in Paul’s'' (both 1604); and the multi-authored royal pageant ''The Magnificent Entertainment'' (1604), so their writing partnership is well established. When prose works and lost plays are included in the count, the number of works produced by the Dekker-Middleton partnership (seven) may well be greater than that produced by the more famous Middleton-Rowley partnership (six). (It should be noted that due to the possibility of Middleton’s part-authorship of Dekker, Ford, and Rowley’s ''The Witch of Edmonton'' (1621) the number of Middleton-Rowley collaborations could be as high as seven; however, in this case the Dekker-Middleton number would in turn rise to eight.)<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (external) ===<br /> The play was listed among 45 plays owned by William Beeston and his company (Beeston’s Boys), performing at the Cockpit, in an order issued by Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke (the Lord Chamberlain) on 10 August 1639, specifying works which other companies should not ‘intermedle wth or Act’ (Munro 2012: 164). If Beeston’s Boys was not the original company – which seems certain given that they were not formed until 1637 (Middleton died in 1627; Dekker died in 1632) – then this suggests ownership of the play must have been transferred to them from elsewhere, before mid-1639.<br /> <br /> The known history of Beeston’s Boys and their repertory suggests that they would likely have acquired the play from either the Duke of York’s (later Prince Charles’s) Men, Queen Anne’s Men, or the Children of the Queen’s Revels, all companies with whom Dekker and/or Middleton are known to have worked.<br /> <br /> === Allusions ===<br /> 13 extracts from ''The Bloody Banquet'' were included in John Cotgrave’s ''Wit’s Treasury'' in 1655, although Cotgrave never named the plays he quoted, nor the author(s) he associated with them.<br /> <br /> === Print and MS attributions ===<br /> <br /> The title page ascription to ‘T. D.’ was repeated in the play-lists of Richard Rogers and William Ley (1656) and Francis Kirkman (1661 and 1671).<br /> <br /> W. W. Greg (quoted in Schoenbaum 1961: vi) pointed out that as Kirkman is known to have been a friend of Beeston, he may have acquired information regarding the play’s authorship directly from him; however, as the 1639 quarto was already in print by the time Kirkman compiled his 1661 list, he just as likely copied the initials from that edition’s title page.<br /> <br /> Edward Archer’s play-list, appended to his copy of the 1656 quarto edition of Middleton, Rowley, and Thomas Heywood’s ''The Old Law'' (1619), attributes the play to one ‘Thomas Barker’, although this is an error Archer makes in place of Dekker’s name elsewhere in the same list, when recording Dekker’s known solo-authored plays ''Old Fortunatus'' (1599) and ''Match Me in London'' (1621).<br /> <br /> Anthony à Wood, in his c.1675–80 catalogue of the contents of Ralph Sheldon’s library, unequivocally attributes the play to Dekker (see Baugh 1918).<br /> <br /> (All of this evidence suggests Dekker as the play’s most likely author. Yet nowhere in the external evidence is there any indication of his having worked with a collaborator. However, as shown below, this is indicated by a variety of internal evidence, which has largely been identified and set forth in Lake 1975, Jackson 1979, Jackson 1998, Taylor 2000, and Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a.)<br /> <br /> == Internal Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Palaeographical evidence ===<br /> N/A.<br /> <br /> === Biographical evidence (internal) ===<br /> Evidence for the presence of an adapter in 2.5 is that this scene is completely unlike anything else Dekker or Middleton produced during their respective careers, most obviously with regard to the opening Chorus. This Chorus seeks to cram a lot of information into just 15 lines, and may be a rushed attempt by the adapter to replace plot content that had been removed by their cuts. In comparison, Dekker preferred to write much longer descriptive choruses (such as the 40-line Chorus that begins Act 2 of ''Old Fortunatus''), whereas Middleton more commonly crafted a distinct personality/character for his narrators (as in Raynulph’s chorus that concludes scene 2.2 of ''Hengist, King of Kent'' (1620)), a personality which is not provided in this ''Bloody Banquet'' Chorus.<br /> <br /> === Theatrical provenance (internal) ===<br /> As the play calls for the use of props resembling severed human limbs, this could potentially indicate that the play previously belonged to Queen Anne’s Men during their affiliation with the Red Bull Theatre, as the same kind of prop also appears in Heywood’s ''The Golden Age'', which they also owned, and which was originally performed at the Red Bull in 1611 (i.e. just a year or two after ''The Bloody Banquet'' was likely first performed): ‘''A banquet brought in, with the limbs of a man in the service''’ (Gaines and Ioppolo 2023: iii, 2.2.34.1). However, in the absence of firmer evidence for ownership, this remains speculation.<br /> <br /> Internal evidence that ''The Bloody Banquet'' underwent a process of later adaptation is characteristic of several other plays acquired by Beeston’s company and included in the 1639 order. Specifically, this internal evidence for adaptation could indicate that ownership of ''The Bloody Banquet'' passed from its original company through Queen Henrietta’s Men (formed in 1625), before being acquired by Beeston’s Boys. Indeed, the 1639 Beeston’s Boys order includes 4 other plays known to have been adapted for performance by Queen Henrietta’s Men:<br /> <br /> * Heywood’s ''The Rape of Lucrece'' (1607-8), revised with the addition of new songs and performed by Queen Henrietta’s Men on 30 July 1628.<br /> * Rowley’s ''Cupid’s Vagaries'' (c.1611, now lost), for which Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert was paid a licencing fee of £1 by Christopher Beeston on 15 August 1633. Christopher Beeston was responsible for the formation of Queen Henrietta’s Men, so this payment is a probable indicator of ownership by them.<br /> * George Chapman’s ''Chabot, Admiral of France'' (c.1612), licensed by Herbert on 29 April 1635, and listed as performed by Queen Henrietta’s Men on the title page of the 1639 quarto (which, like the 1639 ''Bloody Banquet'' quarto, was printed by Thomas Cotes).<br /> * John Fletcher’s ''The Night Walker'' (c.1615), a version of which was licenced by Herbert for performance by Queen Henrietta’s Men on 11 May 1633.<br /> <br /> Christopher Beeston, manager of Queen Henrietta’s Men, was the father of William Beeston, manager of Beeston’s Boys, and both companies performed at the Cockpit, so the internal evidence for adaptation in ''The Bloody Banquet'' may well lead us to consider Queen Henrietta’s Men as possible previous owners of the play. Furthermore, of the known companies related to these 4 plays, ''The Rape of Lucrece'' was originally a property of Queen Anne’s Men and ''Cupid’s Vagaries'' was originally a property of the Duke of York’s Men, both of which fit the known acquisition practices of Beeston’s Boys.<br /> <br /> Of the 4 plays known to have been acquired by Beeston’s Boys from Queen Henrietta’s Men, 3 (''Cupid’s Vagaries''; ''Chabot, Admiral of France''; ''The Night Walker'') are known through both external and internal evidence to have been adapted by James Shirley. Given the possible association with Queen Henrietta’s Men, it is tempting to consider Shirley a candidate for the otherwise unidentified adapter of ''The Bloody Banquet'', although this supposition will require further investigation.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, in 1640 two playwrights associated with Beeston, Richard Brome and Thomas Nabbes, separately complained about the abridgement of their texts for performance (Bentley 1971: 236-7). This indicates an apparent preference for shorter plays on the part of Beeston, and Beeston’s willingness to commission cuts to pre-existing texts might explain further why the surviving version of ''The Bloody Banquet'' is shorter than any other play by Dekker or Middleton (except, in Middleton’s case, ''The Nice Valour'' (1622), although this work was published more than two decades after its original performances, and is itself likely a text that has undergone adaptation).<br /> <br /> It is worth noting here that the quarto text’s use of act/scene divisions that are clumsily imposed upon the text after 5.1.110 (creating a false scene break into 5.1 and a non-existent ‘5.2’; see below) suggests that the copy of the play that lies behind the quarto may have had its act/scene divisions imposed onto it sometime after its original performance. Indeed, if the play was originally performed at an outdoor theatre (like the Red Bull) it would not have used act divisions (see Taylor 1993), but these would have been added into the play when it transferred to an indoor theatre (the Cockpit). The problematic split in the middle of 5.1 could be evidence of later act/scene divisions added into the text as part of a textual restructuring undertaken following the larger process of adaptation. Claire Kimball and Charlene V. Smith have pointed out that the encounter between Tymethes and the Young Queen in 4.3 benefits from the application of pitch darkness that would have been made possible by performance in an indoor playhouse (Kimball and Smith 2024: forthcoming), in similar vein to a ‘dark scene’ in Webster’s Blackfriars play ''The Duchess of Malfi'' (1614); if so, it might indicate that something in the dramaturgy of this scene might also have been altered by the play’s adapter, if the play were transported from an outdoor playhouse to the indoor Cockpit.<br /> <br /> === Metrical evidence ===<br /> In scenes attributed to Dekker, 6 out of 174 rhymes are feminine (3.4%). In scenes attributed to Middleton, 28 out of 208 are feminine (13.5%). The significant split in the frequency of feminine rhymes between these differently attributed scenes provides strong evidence that they are indeed the product of two different hands. Furthermore, these rates seem appropriately Dekkerian and Middletonian respectively (Taylor 2000: 219).<br /> <br /> 1.3.8–9 (‘Stop her mouth first. Soldiers must have their sport. / ’Tis dearly earned; they venture their blood for’t’), attributed to Dekker, employs the same ‘sport/for[’]t’ rhyme as is also found in both Dekker’s ''2 Honest Whore'' (1605) at 4.1.311–12 (‘Common? as spotted Leopards, whom for sport / Men hunt, to get the flesh, but care not for’t’) and ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' at 2.1.121–3 (‘S’bloud if we tosse not them, hang’s agen: a fort / We ha built without, and mand it, this was the sport’). Additionally the ‘ill[s]/pill[s]’ rhyme of 1.3.5–6 (‘Earth, stretch thy throat: take down this bitter pill, / Loathing the hateful taste of his own ill’) also features in Dekker’s ''2 Honest Whore'' at 5.2.488–9 (‘all your Ills / Are cleare purged from you by his working pills’).<br /> <br /> === Chronological evidence ===<br /> All act and scene divisions in the surviving version of the play are presented logically in sequence, apart from one false scene division in the Cotes quarto that occurs after what is given as line 5.1.110 in the ''Oxford Middleton'' edition. This may be suggestive of two hands working in collaboration in the manuscript that was being consulted by the printer, with the change in author being misinterpreted as a division between 5.1 and an unintended ‘5.2’. 5.1 seems to be the only ‘co-authored’ scene in the play (at least, of the scenes that can be confidently attributed).<br /> <br /> The difficulty in attributing 3.2 to either Dekker or Middleton may support evidence of adaptation, when the position of 3.2 between 3.1 and 3.3 is considered. If an adapter had removed material from the Lapyrus plot that fell between 3.1 and 3.3, they would have to have replaced that material with a new scene, so as not to violate the so-called ‘law of re-entry’. Furthermore, as this scene stylistically cannot have been by Middleton, if it were by Dekker it would be his only contribution to the Tymethes plot in the entire play (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a: 365).<br /> <br /> === Vocabulary ===<br /> Many of Middleton’s favoured contractions are present in this play and constitute suggestive evidence for his part-authorship. One rare occurrence in the quarto text is ''Sh’had'' (1.1.75); this occurs 6 times in the Middleton canon, but is rare elsewhere. ''I’m'' is used 13 times, ''I’d'' twice, ''ne’er'' 18 times, ''e’en'' thrice, and ''y’'' 6 times, and ''’t'' contractions appear 34 times. Furthermore, ''h’as'' and ''’tad'' each appear once (Jackson 1979: 114–15). The abbreviation ''’em'', often used by Middleton, is not common in the text of ''The Bloody Banquet'', but does appear in the Middleton-ascribed scenes 1.4, 3.3, and 4.3. ''T’abuse'' appears at 5.1.27 and five other times in Middleton (''The Widow'' (1615), 1.1.192; ''The Witch'' (1616), 4.2.101 and 5.1.66; ''Hengist, King of Kent'', 4.2.27; and ''The Nice Valour'', 5.3.126), but never in Dekker.<br /> <br /> === Oaths and interjections ===<br /> A possibly Dekkerian oath, ''s’nails'' (meaning ‘by God’s nails), occurs at 2.2.27, but many other dramatists are known to have used this oath, meaning it does not constitute strong evidence for Dekker’s presence on its own (Lake: 238).<br /> <br /> At 1.4.127 and 2.3.28, we find the oath ''mass'', one Middleton is known to have been fond of using. At 1.4.149 and 2.3.55 we find ''s’foote'', another Middletonian oath, and at 1.4.176 ''hum'', an exclamation very uncommon outside of Middleton.<br /> <br /> Most tellingly in the case of oaths and other expletives, of the 39 expletives known to be more common to Middleton that to any other early modern playwright, 19 appear in ''The Bloody Banquet''; this high rate is only surpassed by one other play, Nathan Field’s ''Amends for Ladies'' (1610), although it is worth noting that this play is itself 22% longer than the extant version of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Taylor 2000: 207). The Middletonian expletives that appear in ''The Bloody Banquet'' are ''troth'', ''by this light'', ''i’faith'', ''faith'', ''by my faith'', ''mass'', ''by my troth'', ''by the mass'', ''s’foot'', ''puh'', ''why le/law you now'', ''pish'', ''hist'', ''whist'', ''death'', ''pox on'', ''pox of'', ''prithee'', ''how now'', ''I warrant'', ''hum'', and ''and by this hand''.<br /> <br /> Of these, Jackson observed that the play’s author made use of ''puh'' and ''why law you now'' 11 times, and noted that ''la'' or ''law'' is very common in Jacobean drama, but immediately preceding it with ''why'' or following it with ''you'' is much less common, and ''why la''[''w''] ''you'' is a very rare formulation, except as an indicator of Middleton’s authorship. Jackson found in 4,000 plays only 5 with both ''puh'' and ''why la''[''w''] ''you'': ''The Bloody Banquet'' and 4 established Middleton plays, these being ''The Puritan'' (1606), ''1 Honest Whore'', ''No Wit, No Help Like a Woman’s'' (1611), and ''Wit at Several Weapons'' (1613). Furthermore, ''my troth'' can only be found in 7 plays: ''The Phoenix'' (1604), ''Michaelmas Term'' (1604), ''A Trick to Catch the Old One'' (1605), ''A Mad World, My Masters'' (1605), ''The Puritan'', ''Wit at Several Weapons'', and Shakespeare’s ''Coriolanus'' (1608), the latter being the only non-Middleton example (1998: 4).<br /> <br /> Additionally, ''a murren on you'' or ''a murren on them'' is an unusual oath formulation in the extant corpus of early modern drama, but it also appears in Middleton’s ''Hengist, King of Kent'' at 5.1.263. Similarly, ''a murren meet ’em'' appears in ''A Mad World, My Masters'' at 2.6.77, and ''The Revenger’s Tragedy'' (1606) at 3.6.84 (Holdsworth 1994). Dekker, however, does use ''how a murrain'' in ''The Shoemaker’s Holiday'' (1599) at 4.2.48 (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007b: 366), although this resembles the Middleton parallels markedly less.<br /> <br /> The oath ''s’light'' also appears in Middleton’s ''The Widow'' and ''Your Five Gallants'' (1607).<br /> <br /> === Linguistic evidence ===<br /> One stand-out piece of evidence regarding Middletonian spellings has been pointed out in Taylor and Lavagnino, namely that ‘trechery’ (4.3.240) and ‘trecher’ (4.3.257) parallel Middleton’s spellings of these words in his 1624 play ''A Game at Chess'' (at 4.4.14 and 4.2.8 respectively) (2007a: 367).<br /> <br /> At 1.1.45, we find the same kind of alliteration between '''‘'''devil’ and ‘duke[dom]’ as can also be found to occur in ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''. Compare ''The Bloody Banquet''’s ‘The devil! The dukedom, the kingdom, Lydia’ with ''The Revenger’s Tragedy’s'' ‘Ay, to the devil. – To th’ Duke, by my faith’ (2.1.202).<br /> <br /> === Stage directions ===<br /> In similar fashion to the conclusion of ''The Bloody Banquet'', an ecclesiastically-disguised character (and more specifically, a ‘good’ character) also appears in the final scenes of Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' and ''The Noble Spanish Soldier'' (1622), and Dekker and Middleton’s ''1 Honest Whore''. Crucially, this is not a plot detail found in the Warner source material, and so was evidently an invention of the dramatist(s). In this light, its incorporation into the play’s narrative seems remarkably Dekkerian.<br /> <br /> The speech prefix ‘Omn.’ (at 1.1.2) is very rare in Middleton, appearing only once each in ''Hengist, King of Kent'', ''Women Beware Women'' (1621), and ''The Nice Valour''. However, ‘Omnes’ as a speech prefix is common in Dekker, appearing multiple times in several of his solo-authored plays: ''Blurt, Master Constable'' (1601); ''Satiromastix''; ''2 Honest Whore''; ''The Whore of Babylon'' (1606); and ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It''.<br /> <br /> The stage direction that opens 3.3, ‘''Enter Roxano leading Tymethes. Mazeres meets them''’ (3.3.0sd) bears a telling Middletonian characteristic, specifically the formulation ‘''Enter A meeting B''’ or ''Enter A. B meets A''’, a style of entry direction that is unique to Middleton. The fact that this entry direction describes ‘''Roxano leading Tymethes''’ along what Tymethes calls a ‘blind pilgrimage’ (3.3.1) also resembles the opening stage direction of 3.1 of Middleton’s ''The'' ''Witch'': ‘''Enter Duchess, leading Almachildes blindfold''’ (3.1.0sd).<br /> <br /> The use of a ‘''blazing star''’ in the stage direction at 5.1.110sd2 resembles Dekker’s use of such imagery in ''2 Honest Whore'' 4.2.52, but this image appears frequently in the works of Middleton, most famously in ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''.<br /> <br /> Another interesting feature that may be indicative of Middletonian dramaturgy is the application of two banqueting scenes (3.3 and 5.1), the latter of which is a more tragic inversion of the former (see Meads: 154–7). Such a symbolic pairing of banqueting scenes is something that dramaturgically interested Middleton (see Green: 190–1).<br /> <br /> === Verbal parallels ===<br /> A signifier of Dekker’s presence can be found early in the Cotes quarto, when the list of characters is described as a ‘Drammatis Personae’ (A1&lt;sup&gt;v&lt;/sup&gt;) rather than i.e. ‘Names of the Persons’. This is a description common to Dekker’s works or works involving Dekker, and can be found in quartos of ''Satiromastix'', ''The Whore of Babylon'', ''The Roaring Girl'', ''The Noble Spanish Soldier'', ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' (1623), and ''The Spanish Gypsy'' (Lake: 239).<br /> <br /> There are many verbal parallels in the play’s text that can be linked to other works by Dekker. The ‘venture their blood’ imagery of 1.3.9 recalls ''The Whore of Babylon'' 5.6.19 (‘venture our owne bloud’). The connection between the words ‘dear’ and ‘earn’ (‘’Tis dearly earned’, 1.3.9) also appears in ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' 2.1.173 (‘hee that dearest earnes his bread’) and 4.4.11 (‘At how deere rate the careles world does earne’). Lapyrus’s line at 1.3.5-6 (‘Earth, stretch thy throat: take down this bitter pill, / Loathing the hateful taste of his own ill’) also recalls the language of Dekker: in ''The Whore of Babylon'' 5.4.12-13 we find ‘fifty Canons throats, / Stretcht wide’; ‘take […] this bitter pill’ recalls ''The Wonder of a Kingdom'' 2.1.87-8 (‘Even in this bitter pill (for me) so you / Would play but my Phisician, and say, take it’); and ‘loath[ing] […] taste’ recalls ''Old Fortunatus'' 4.1.140 (‘thy gifts I loath to tast’). Of this last point of comparison, a juxtaposition between ‘taste’ and ‘hate’ within 4 words also appears in ''2 Honest Whore'' 1.2.159 (‘he taught her first to taste poison; I hate her for her selfe’).<br /> <br /> Another interesting point is the speech at 1.3.19-23, with its focus on prayers for soldiers, a concern also expressed by Dekker in his ''Four Birds of Noah’s Ark'' (1609).<br /> <br /> Similar Middleton parallels in the play include ‘Right oracle!’ (1.4.25), which recalls ''The Revenger’s Tragedy''’s ‘’Tis oracle’ (4.1.89), where in both senses ‘oracle’ means ‘absolute truth’, and ‘Heart of ill fortune!’ (4.1.45), which strikingly resembles ‘Heart, of chance’ (6.4) in ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' (1605).<br /> <br /> ‘I never knew the force of a desire / Until this minute’ (1.4.42) resembles ''The Revenger’s Tragedy'' 2.2.34-5 (‘I never thought their sex had been a wonder / Until this minute’), ''Wit at Several Weapons'' 1.1.210 (‘I never beheld comeliness till this minute’), and ''A Mad World, My Masters'' 4.5.17-19 (‘I ne’er knew / At which end to begin to affect a woman / Till this bewitching minute’).<br /> <br /> ‘Favours are grown to custom ’twixt ’em both: / Letters, close banquets, whisperings, private meetings’ (4.1.32) recalls what Taylor calls Middleton’s fondness for ‘catalogues of debauchery’ (Taylor 2001: 209), as in ''A Trick to Catch the Old One'' 5.2.172-3 (‘All secret friends and private meetings, / Close-borne letters and bawds’ greetings’).<br /> <br /> === Image clusters ===<br /> <br /> The line ‘As your son and heir at his father’s funeral’ (1.4.2) recalls Middleton’s fondness for jokes surrounding imagery of a father’s death, which are also made use of in ''The Puritan'' 1.1 and ''The'' ''Revenger’s Tragedy'' 4.2.<br /> <br /> Middleton is also known to have identified the imagery of a padlock as something distinctly Italian, as at 1.4.29. See, for example, ''A Mad World, My Masters'' 1.2.22–3 (‘kept by the Italian under lock and key’) and ''A Chaste Maid in Cheapside'' (1613) 4.4.4–5 (‘padlocks, father; the Venetian uses it’).<br /> <br /> Holdsworth (1994) has drawn attention to the rareness of the image of a person in wax at 2.1.62–3 (‘my young prodigal first in wax’), but which is similar to imagery found in ''Michaelmas Term'' 4.1.45–6 and ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' 1.51–2. Dekker does use a comparable image in ''Lantern and Candlelight'' (1608), but unlike in the Middleton parallels does not use the specific phrase ‘in wax’ (Taylor and Lavagnino 2007a: 367).<br /> <br /> The reference to a ‘sea-wolf’ (i.e. a pirate) at 2.1.68 connects the play to all three of the Middleton plays that can be dated to 1611, just a year or two after the composition of ''The Bloody Banquet'': piratical imagery appears in ''The Roaring Girl'', ''The Lady’s Tragedy'', and ''No Wit, No Help Like a Woman’s''.<br /> <br /> Imagery connecting the ideas of sport and soldiers (‘Soldiers must have their sport’, 1.3.8) also appears in Dekker’s ''The Whore of Babylon'' 4.3.26 (‘tis the souldiers sport’) and ''2 Honest Whore'' 4.1.286–8 (‘Soldiers fight for them […] Thus (for sport sake)’).<br /> <br /> The Tyrant’s use of a metaphor about bees at 1.1.26–7 (‘so unload victory’s honey thighs / To let drones feed’) recalls a similar bee-based metaphor used by a villainous character in Dekker’s ''If This Be Not a Good Play, The Devil Is In It'' (1.3.162–8).<br /> <br /> Another potential Dekkerian image is the combination of widows and orphans as an emotional image, as can be found at 2.1.5 (‘devour a widow and three orphans’), and which is also used by Dekker in ''The Raven’s Almanac'' (1609).<br /> <br /> In Dekker, Chettle, and William Haughton’s ''Patient Grissel'' (1599), Dekker writes a passage in which Grissel is prevented from breastfeeding her two new-born babies (4.1.123–4), which may be recalled in the description of the Old Queen and her famished infants (2.2.9–10).<br /> <br /> Finally, the use of wolf imagery in a discussion about strength versus weakness (2.1.74–6) can also be found in Dekker’s ''Match Me in London'' at 4.1.58–66.<br /> <br /> == Critical Debate ==<br /> E. H. C. Oliphant was the first to propose Dekker and Middleton as co-authors of the play, in a ''Times Literary Supplement'' article of 1925, and his argument was subsequently endorsed by Gerald J. Eberle in 1948 (725). Oliphant’s analysis was not widely accepted at first, however, despite the fact that, to quote Taylor, Oliphant ‘was the key figure in redefining the Middleton canon in the twentieth century, and almost all of his attributions have been accepted and confirmed by subsequent scholars’ (Taylor 2000: 198). Indeed, in the 1950s Samuel Schoenbaum dismissed Oliphant as having ‘failed to make a convincing case’ regarding the play’s authorship (1955: 226), and Gerald Eades Bentley was even more scornful, stating that ‘The case for Dekker and Middleton is based mostly on parallels and repeated words and phrases – the flimsiest kind of “evidence”’ (1956: iii, 282–3). David J. Lake (1975: 239–41) and MacDonald P. Jackson (1979: 113–16), however, did take the Dekker-Middleton attribution more seriously, and although at the time they considered it far from proven – to quote Jackson’s later words on the matter, at the time they were both ‘non-committal’ (1998: 4) – most scholars now accept ''The Bloody Banquet'' to be a collaborative work by Dekker and Middleton; Jackson later substantially revised his opinion, stating that ‘It is clear to me now that those links are so strong as to constitute virtual proof that Oliphant was right’ (1998: 4). In 2007 the play was included as part of the ''Oxford Middleton'', in a text edited by Taylor and Julia Gasper (2007b: 637-69), thus enshrining the play in print as part of the Middleton canon for the very first time; the play had previously been excluded from the Middleton collected works of Alexander Dyce (1840) and A. H. Bullen (1885–7), both of which were published long before Oliphant’s analysis.<br /> <br /> Other possible alternative authors have been proposed over the years, although each has seen far less scholarly acceptance. One alternative candidate, promoted by Frederick Gard Fleay, was Thomas Drue (or Drew), the only other known playwright from the time to have the initials ‘T. D.’ (1891: i, 162). However, both Lake and Jackson ruled Drue out in their stylistic analyses of ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Lake: 233–4; Jackson 1979: 113–16). Drue is the author of only one other acknowledged play that survives to this day, ''The Duchess of Suffolk'' (1624), so an attribution of ''The Bloody Banquet'' to Drue could be argued to bring with it little critical enlightenment.<br /> <br /> Additionally, David Erskine Baker suggested Robert Davenport as the play’s author on the basis that ''The Bloody Banquet'' is listed after several Davenport plays in Herbert‘s list, the argument thus being that the ‘T. D.’ on the 1639 title page was a mistake for ‘R. D.’ (1812: 61). However, this argument is no more persuasive than someone in favour of Middleton’s authorship saying, conversely, that ‘T. D.’ is a mistake for ‘T. M.’ The Davenport theory was nevertheless later revived by James G. McManaway, although he largely based this argument on the fact that the ‘Hector adest secumque Deos in prœlia ducit’ motto on ''The Bloody Banquet''’s title page also appears on the manuscript of the anonymous play ''Dick of Devonshire'' (1626-7), which McManaway (on little evidence) also attributed to Davenport (1946: 34). McManaway claimed to have found ‘considerable internal evidence that [''The Bloody Banquet''] and ''Dick of Devonshire'' are from the same pen, and that the writer was indeed Robert Davenport’ (35), but he did not proceed to provide this supposed evidence. Davenport’s authorship of ''Dick of Devonshire'' is no longer supported in present-day scholarship; indeed, Heywood is believed to be a much more likely candidate (see e.g. Long 2014; Greatley-Hirsch, Pangallo, and White 2024).<br /> <br /> == Critical Commentary ==<br /> The authorship of 3.2 is uncertain. The scene displays Dekker’s fondness for ''hath'' over ''has'', and this form of the word occurs twice in this short scene; however, ''hath'' was a popular form used by many other dramatists, so is not necessarily a strong indicator of Dekker’s authorship specifically, and could just as easily be the preference of the play’s adapter. In the absence of firmer evidence, the author of 3.2 remains undetermined. However, as with many surviving early modern plays published many years after their original composition and performance, the presence of an adapting hand in ''The Bloody Banquet'' seems incredibly likely.<br /> <br /> Given its relatively short length, it is generally agreed that the Cotes quarto reproduces an abridged text of the play, something we know was a theatrical practice undertaken by Beeston’s company (see above). Schoenbaum (1961: vii-viii) observed numerous curiosities in the text that are at the very least suggestive of significant cutting and other forms of alteration. These include (I hear indicate cut material using &lt; &gt;):<br /> <br /> * A line seemingly lost at Induction.Chorus.11 (‘This Lord Lapyrus entertained and welcomed / By &lt; &gt;, / But chiefly by the fair Eurymone’).<br /> * Further lines possibly removed from 1.1.154–5 (‘Or if for larger bounties &lt; &gt; I was mad’), 4.3.106-8 (‘Had any warning fast’ned on thy senses, / &lt; &gt; / Rash, unadvisèd youth, whom my soul weeps for’), and 5.1.13–16 (although in this case such a cut is not noted in the ''Oxford Middleton'' text).<br /> * An incomplete line at 1.4.29 (‘Italian padlocks, &lt; &gt;’).<br /> * Sextorio and Lodovicus being named as such in the ‘Drammatis Personae’ and in 1.1, but then becoming ‘Sertorio’ and ‘Lodovico’ in Acts 4 and 5.<br /> * Armatrites being named as such in speech prefixes throughout 1.1, but becoming simply ‘Tyrant’ from then on.<br /> * The Young Queen claiming ‘I speak strange words against my fantasy’ at 1.4.66, despite having done no such thing.<br /> * The Old King of Lydia saying ‘On thee, ''Lapyrus'', and thy treacheries, fall / The heavy burden of an old man’s curse’ at 1.1.69–70, and calling him an ‘Inhuman monster!’ at 2.4.3, but then easily forgiving him just 9 lines later (‘Set all our hands to help him. – Come, good man’, 2.4.12) with no clear indication as to why. This differs substantially from the Warner source material.<br /> * The King of Lycia, Zantippus, and Eurymone being afforded noteworthy status by being listed in the play’s ‘Drammatis Personae’, but only appearing in the dumb show of the Induction.<br /> <br /> Most striking, however, is a change in the play’s narratives after Act 2. As Schoenbaum noted, in Acts 1 and 2 the playwrights establish the story of the Young Queen, Tymethes, and the Tyrant in 3 scenes, while 5 are devoted to the tale of the Old Queen, Lapyrus, and the King. After this, the latter story is not picked up again until the final scene, when they appear disguised as pilgrims. It is never explained why they are dressed in such a fashion or from where they acquired such garments, suggesting a significant amount of subplot material may have been removed from the play by an adapting hand. Acts 2, 3, and 5 are also markedly short in comparison with Acts 1 and 4, which may be further evidence of substantial cutting; if the respective lengths of Acts 1 and 4 were replicated throughout the play, ''The Bloody Banquet'' would be of an average length for drama of the period, so the play’s brevity is seemingly a consequence of the unusual shortness of Acts 2, 3, and 5. It thus appears that the adapter considered material from the Lapyrus plot the most worthy of being dispensed with.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, given the amount of scenes focusing on the Lapyrus plot in Act 1 compared with amount of scenes dedicated to the Tymethes plot in the same Act, it is possible that the importance of the plots has been reversed in the extant version of the play. Whereas now the Lapyrus plot appears to be something of a subplot, in the original version the story of Lapyrus might have been the majority focus, with the Tymethes plot taking subplot status. While the play’s title, ''The Bloody Banquet'', clearly relates to the Tymethes plot, this was not necessarily the title of the play under which it was originally performed in c.1609 (and in any case, plays did sometimes take their titles from their subplot).<br /> <br /> == Further Thoughts ==<br /> <br /> == Works Cited ==<br /> Barroll, Leeds (1991), ''Politics, Plague, and Shakespeare’s Theater: The Stuart Years'' (New York: Cornell University Press).<br /> <br /> Baker, David Erskine (1812), ''Biographia Dramatica, or, A Companion to the Playhouse'' (Dublin: T. Henshall).<br /> <br /> Baugh, Albert C. (1918), ‘A Seventeenth Century Play-List’, ''Modern Language Review'' (13), 401–11.<br /> <br /> Bentley, Gerald Eades (1956), ''The Jacobean and Caroline Stage'', vol. iii (Oxford: Clarendon Press).<br /> <br /> Bentley, Gerald Eades (1971), ''The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s Time'' (Princeton: Princeton University Press).<br /> <br /> Bowers, Fredson, ed. (1953–61), ''The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker'', 4 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). All quotations from the works of Dekker are from this edition.<br /> <br /> Eberle, Gerald J. (1948), ‘Dekker’s Part in ''The Family of Love''’, in James G. McManaway, Giles E. Dawson, and Edwin E. Willoughby (eds), ''Joseph Quincy Adams Memorial Studies'' (Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library), 723–38.<br /> <br /> Fleay, Frederick Gard (1891), ''A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama 1559–1642'', vol. i (London: Reeves and Turner).<br /> <br /> Gaines, Barry, and Grace Ioppolo, eds (2023), ''The Collected Works of Thomas Heywood'', vol. iii (Oxford: Oxford University Press).<br /> <br /> Greatley-Hirsch, Brett, Matteo Pangallo, and Rachel White (2024), ‘“Text up his name”: The Authorship of the Manuscript Play ''Dick of Devonshire’, Studies in Philology'' (121), forthcoming.<br /> <br /> Green, William David (2020), ‘“Such Violent Hands”: The Theme of Cannibalism and the Implications of Authorship in the 1623 Text of ''Titus Andronicus''’, ''Exchanges'' (7), 182–99.<br /> <br /> Holdsworth, R. V. (1994), ‘A Middleton Oath in ''A Yorkshire Tragedy'' and ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Notes and Queries'' (239), 70.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. (1998), ‘Editing, Attribution Studies, and “Literature Online”: A New Resource for Research in Renaissance Drama’, ''Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama'' (37), 1–15.<br /> <br /> Jackson, MacDonald P. (1979), ''Studies in Attribution: Middleton and Shakespeare'' (Salzburg: Universität Salzberg.<br /> <br /> Kimball, Claire, and Charlene V. Smith (2024), ‘''The Bloody Banquet'' in Performance’, in William David Green, Anna L. Hegland, and Sam Jermy, eds, ''The Theatrical Legacy of Thomas Middleton, 1624–2024'' (London: Routledge). Forthcoming.<br /> <br /> Lake, David J. (1975), ''The Canon of Thomas Middleton’s Plays: Internal Evidence for the Major Problems of Authorship'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).<br /> <br /> Long, William B. (2014), ‘Playhouse Shadows: The Manuscript Behind ''Dick of Devonshire''’, ''Early Theatre'' (17), 146–68.<br /> <br /> McManaway, James G. (1946), ‘Latin Title Page Mottoes as a Clue to Dramatic Authorship’, ''The Library'' (26), 28–36.<br /> <br /> Meads, Chris (2001), ''Banquets Set Forth: Banqueting in English Renaissance Drama'' (Manchester: Manchester University Press).<br /> <br /> Munro, Lucy (2012), ‘Middleton and Caroline Theatre’, in Gary Taylor and Trish Thomas Henley, eds, ''The Oxford Handbook of Thomas Middleton'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 164–80.<br /> <br /> Oliphant, E. H. C. (1925), ‘''The Bloodie Banquet'', A Dekker-Middleton Play’, ''Times Literary Supplement'' (17 December), 882.<br /> <br /> Schoenbaum, Samuel, ed. (1961), ''The Bloody Banquet'' (Oxford: Malone Society Reprints).<br /> <br /> Schoenbaum, Samuel (1955), ''Middleton’s Tragedies: A Critical Study'' (New York: Columbia University Press).<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (2001), ‘Gender, Hunger, Horror: The History and Significance of ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies'' (1), 1–45.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (1993), ‘The Structure of Performance: Act-Intervals in the London Theatres, 1576-1642’, in John Jowett and Gary Taylor, eds, ''Shakespeare Reshaped, 1606-1623'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 3–50.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary (2000), ‘Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and ''The Bloody Banquet''’, ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'' (94), 197–233.<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary, and John Lavagnino, eds (2007a), ''Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture: A Companion to the Collected Works'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press).<br /> <br /> Taylor, Gary, and John Lavagnino, eds (2007b), ''Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press). All quotations from ''The Bloody Banquet'' and other works by Middleton are from this edition.<br /> [[category:1609]]<br /> [[category:Middleton,_Thomas]]<br /> [[category:Dekker,_Thomas]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by William David Green; updated on 24 March 2023.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Green, William David]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Bloody_Banquet,_The&diff=1209 2023-04-06T14:23:19Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== Year (composition) ==<br /> This is the year.<br /> <br /> == Year (first printed) ==<br /> <br /> == Reprints (until 1700) ==<br /> <br /> == Authors (title-page ascription, including reprints) ==<br /> <br /> == Authors proposed (attribution scholarship) ==<br /> <br /> == Genre ==<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> <br /> == Auspices ==<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> == External Documentary Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Payments ===<br /> === Stationers’ Register ===<br /> === Title-page ascription(s) ===<br /> === Biographical evidence (external) ===<br /> === Theatrical provenance (external) ===<br /> === Allusions ===<br /> === Print and MS attributions ===<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> == Internal Evidence ==<br /> <br /> === Palaeographical evidence ===<br /> === Biographical evidence (internal) ===<br /> === Theatrical provenance (internal) ===<br /> === Metrical evidence ===<br /> === Chronological evidence ===<br /> === Vocabulary ===<br /> === Oaths and interjections ===<br /> === Linguistic evidence ===<br /> === Stage directions ===<br /> === Verbal parallels ===<br /> === Image clusters ===<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> == Critical Debate ==<br /> <br /> == Critical Commentary ==<br /> <br /> == Further Thoughts ==<br /> <br /> == Works Cited ==<br /> <br /> [[category:1609]]<br /> [[category:Middleton,_Thomas]]<br /> [[category:Dekker,_Thomas]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by William David Green; updated on 24 March 2023.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Green, William David]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Bloody_Banquet,_The&diff=1208 2023-04-06T14:18:35Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Entry}}<br /> <br /> [[category:1609]]<br /> [[category:Middleton,_Thomas]]<br /> [[category:Dekker,_Thomas]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by William David Green; updated on 24 March 2023.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Green, William David]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Bibliography&diff=1207 2023-04-06T14:16:41Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== Getting started ==<br /> <br /> Readers interested in authorship attribution may understandably find the sheer quantity of scholarship on the subject intimidating. For an engaging introduction to attribution study – its history, principles, and methods – written for the non-specialist reader, the general editors recommend Harold Love's ''Attributing Authorship: An Introduction'' (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002). <br /> <br /> For an overview of the history of attribution studies of Shakespeare and early modern drama, see Gabriel Egan's chapter, 'A History of Shakespearean Authorship Attribution', in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 27–47. For a primer in Shakespeare authorship attribution, see Hugh Craig, 'Shakespeare and Authorship Attribution Methodologies', in ''The Arden Research Companion to Shakespeare and Textual Studies'', ed. by Lukas Erne (Arden Shakespeare, 2021), pp. 225–43. For discussion of external and internal forms of attribution evidence, and the order and composition of the Shakespeare canon, see Gary Taylor and Rory Loughnane's book-length study, 'The Canon and Chronology of Shakespeare's Works', in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 417–602.<br /> <br /> Martin Wiggins's (in association with Catherine Richardson) ''British Drama: A Catalogue, 1533-1642'' (10 volumes), is an important resource for information about the plays and entertainments of the period. We have adopted the titles used in the ''Catalogue'' for entertainments (masques, tilts, royal entries, and civic pageants) for ease of cross-reference. Another valuable resource for the print and reprint history of early modern drama, including title-page attributions, is [http://deep.sas.upenn.edu ''DEEP: Database of Early English Playbooks''], edited by Alan B. Farmer and Zachary Lesser.<br /> <br /> == Works Cited ==<br /> <br /> This section supplies bibliographical information for scholarship cited in CADRE entries as well as suggested reading.<br /> <br /> === A ===<br /> * Argamon, Shlomo, 'Interpreting Burrows's Delta: Geometric and Probabilistic Foundations', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 23.2 (2008), 131–47.<br /> * Ashley, Leonard R.N., ''Authorship and Evidence: A Study of Attribution and the Renaissance Drama Illustrated by the Case of George Peele (1556–1596)'' (Librairie Droz, 1968).<br /> <br /> === B ===<br /> * Bruster, Douglas, 'Shakespearean Spellings and Handwriting in the Additional Passages Printed in the 1602 ''Spanish Tragedy''', ''Notes &amp; Queries'', 60 (2013), 420–24.<br /> * Burke, Séan, ''The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida'', 3rd edn (Edinburgh UP, 2008).<br /> * Burrows, John, 'All the Way Through: Testing for Authorship in Different Frequency Strata', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 22 (2007), 27–47.<br /> * Burrows, John, 'Delta: A Measure of Stylistic Difference and a Guide to Likely Authorship', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 17 (2002), 267–87.<br /> * Burrows, John, and Hugh Craig, 'Attribution', in ''The Cambridge Handbook of Literary Authorship'', ed. by Ingo Berensmeyer, Gert Buelens, and Marysa Demoor (Cambridge UP, 2019), pp. 325–40.<br /> * Byrne, Muriel St Clare, 'Bibliographical Clues in Collaborate Plays', ''The Library'', 14 (1932), 21–48.<br /> <br /> === C ===<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Authorial Styles and the Frequencies of Very Common Words: Jonson, Shakespeare, and the Additions to ''The Spanish Tragedy''', ''Style'', 26 (1992), 199–220.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Authorship', in ''The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare'', ed. by Arthur F. Kinney (Oxford UP, 2012), pp. 15–30.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Shakespeare's Vocabulary: Myth and Reality', ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 62.1 (2011), 53–74.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Shakespeare and Authorship Attribution Methodologies', in ''The Arden Research Companion to Shakespeare and Textual Studies'', ed. by Lukas Erne (Arden Shakespeare, 2021), pp. 225–43.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Style, Statistics, and New Models of Authorship', ''Early Modern Literary Studies'', 15 (2010), 2.1-41.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, and John Burrows, 'A Collaboration about a Collaboration: The Authorship of ''King Henry VI, Part Three''', in ''Collaborative Research in the Digital Humanities'', ed. by Marilyn Deegan and Willard McCarty (Ashgate, 2012), pp. 27–65.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, and Brett Greatley-Hirsch, ''Style, Computers, and Early Modern Drama: Beyond Authorship'' (Cambridge UP, 2017).<br /> * Craig, Hugh, and Ruth Lunney, 'Who Wrote ''Dido, Queen of Carthage''?', ''Journal of Marlowe Studies'', 1 (2020).<br /> <br /> === E ===<br /> * Eder, Maciej, 'Mind Your Corpus: Systematic Errors in Authorship Attribution', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 28 (2013), 603–14.<br /> * Egan, Gabriel, 'A History of Shakespearean Authorship Attribution', in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 27–47.<br /> * Egan, Gabriel, 'What is Not Collaborative about Early Modern Drama in Performance and Print?', ''Shakespeare Survey'', 67 (2014), 18–28.<br /> * Eisen, Mark, Alejandro Ribeiro, Santiago Segarra, and Gabriel Egan, 'Stylometric Analysis of Early Modern Period English Plays', ''Digital Scholarship in the Humanities'', 33 (2018), 500–28.<br /> * Elliott, Ward E.Y., and Robert J. Valenza, 'Shakespeare's Vocabulary: Did It Dwarf All Others?', in ''Stylistics and Shakespeare's Language: Transdisciplinary Approaches'', ed. by Mireille Ravassat and Jonathan Culpeper (London: Continuum), pp. 34–57.<br /> * Evert, Stefan, Thomas Proisl, Fotis Jannidis, Isabella Reger, Steffen Pielström, Christof Schöch, and others, 'Understanding and Explaining Delta Measures for Authorship Attribution', ''Digital Scholarship in the Humanities'', 32.2 (2017), ii4–16.<br /> <br /> === F ===<br /> * Freebury-Jones, Darren, and Marcus Dahl, 'Searching for Thomas Nashe in ''Dido, Queen of Carthage''', ''Digital Scholarship in the Humanities'', 35 (2020), 296–306.<br /> <br /> === G ===<br /> * Greatley-Hirsch, Brett, 'Computational Studies', in ''The Arden Research Handbook of Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', ed. by Evelyn Gajowski (London: Arden Shakespeare, 2020), pp. 205–21.<br /> * Greg, W.W., 'Authorship Attributions in the Early Play-Lists, 1656–1671', ''Edinburgh Bibliographical Society Transactions'', 2 (1946), 305–26.<br /> <br /> === H ===<br /> * Hammond, Antony, and Doreen DelVecchio, 'The Melbourne Manuscript and John Webster: A Reproduction and Transcript', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 41 (1988), 1–32.<br /> * Holdsworth, Roger, 'Stage Directions and Authorship: Shakespeare, Middleton, Heywood', ''Memoria di Shakespeare'', 8 (2012), 57–63.<br /> * Hope, Jonathan, ''The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays: A Socio-Linguistic Study'' (Cambridge UP, 1994).<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (I)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 8 (1956), 129–46.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (II)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 9 (1957), 143–62.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (III)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 11 (1958), 85–106.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (IV)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 12 (1959), 91–116.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (V)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 13 (1960), 77–108.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (VI)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 14 (1961), 45–67.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (VII)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 15 (1962), 71–90.<br /> <br /> === J ===<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'Collaboration', in ''The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare'', ed. by Arthur F Kinney (Oxford UP, 2012), pp. 31–52.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'Cyril Tourneur and ''The Honest Man's Fortune''', ''Medieval &amp; Renaissance Drama in England'', 32 (2019), 203–18.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'The Date and Authorship of ''Thomas of Woodstock'': Evidence and Its Interpretation', ''Research Opportunities in Medieval and Renaissance Drama'', 46 (2007), 67–100.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., ''Determining the Shakespeare Canon: &quot;Arden of Faversham&quot; and &quot;A Lover's Complaint&quot;'' (Oxford UP, 2014).<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'John Webster, James Shirley, and the Melbourne Manuscript', ''Medieval &amp; Renaissance Drama in England'', 19 (2006), 21–44.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'John Webster and Thomas Heywood in ''Appius and Virginia'': A Bibliographical Approach to the Problem of Authorship', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 38 (1985), 217–35.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'Late Webster and His Collaborators: How Many Playwrights Wrote ''A Cure for a Cuckold''?', ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'', 95 (2001), 295–313.<br /> * Juola, Patrick, 'Authorship Attribution', ''Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval'', 1.3 (2006), 233–334.<br /> <br /> === K ===<br /> * Kahan, Jeffrey, '&quot;I tell you what mine author says&quot;: A Brief History of Stylometrics', ''ELH'', 82.3 (2015), 815–44.<br /> * Knapp, Jeffrey, 'What Is a Co-Author?', ''Representations'', 89 (2005), 1–29.<br /> <br /> === L ===<br /> * Lake, David J., ''The Canon of Thomas Middleton's Plays: Internal Evidence for the Major Problems of Authorship'' (Cambridge UP, 1975).<br /> * Lake, David J., 'Three Seventeenth-Century Revisions: ''Thomas of Woodstock'', ''The Jew of Malta'', and ''Faustus B''', ''Notes &amp; Queries'', 30 (1983), 133–43.<br /> * Loughnane, Rory, 'Re-editing Non-Shakespeare for the Modern Reader: The Murder of Mutius in ''Titus Andronicus''', ''The Review of English Studies'', 68.284 (2017), 268–95.<br /> * Loughnane, Rory, 'Thomas Middleton in ''All’s Well that Ends Well''? Parts One and Two', in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 278–302, 307–20. <br /> * Loughnane, Rory, 'Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Traces of Authorship' in ''The Birth and Death of the Author: A Multi-Authored History of Authorship'', ed. by Andrew J. Power (Routledge, 2020), pp. 54–78. <br /> * Love, Harold, ''Attributing Authorship: An Introduction'' (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002).<br /> * Luyckx, Kim, and Walter Daelemans, 'The Effect of Author Set Size and Data Size in Authorship Attribution', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 26 (2011), 35–55.<br /> <br /> === M ===<br /> * Merriam, Thomas, 'Marlowe and Nash in ''Dido Queen of Carthage''', ''Notes &amp; Queries'', 47 (2000), 425–28.<br /> <br /> === O ===<br /> * Oliphant, E.H.C., ''The Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher: An Attempt to Determine Their Respective Shares and the Shares of Others'' (Yale UP, 1927).<br /> * Oliphant, E.H.C., 'Problems of Authorship in Elizabethan Dramatic Literature', ''Modern Philology'', 8 (1911), 411–59.<br /> <br /> === R ===<br /> * Rowland, Richard, '&quot;Speaking Some Words, but of No Importance&quot;? Stage Directions, Thomas Heywood, and ''Edward IV''', ''Medieval &amp; Renaissance Drama in England'', 18 (2005), 104–22.<br /> <br /> === S ===<br /> * Schoenbaum, S., ''Internal Evidence and Elizabethan Dramatic Authorship: An Essay in Literary History and Method'' (Northwestern UP, 1966).<br /> * Segarra, Santiago, Mark Eisen, Gabriel Egan, and Alejandro Ribeiro, 'Attributing the Authorship of the ''Henry VI'' Plays by Word Adjacency', ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 67 (2016), 232–56.<br /> * Smith, M.W.A., 'The Authorship of &quot;A Lover’s Complaint&quot;: An Application of Statistical Stylometry to Poetry', ''Computers and the Humanities'', 18 (1984), 23–37.<br /> * Smith, M.W.A., 'The Authorship of Acts I and II of ''Pericles'': A New Approach Using First Words of Speeches', ''Computers and the Humanities'', 22 (1988), 23–41.<br /> * Smith, M.W.A., 'An Investigation of Morton’s Method to Distinguish Elizabethan Playwrights', ''Computers and the Humanities'', 19 (1985), 3–21.<br /> <br /> === T ===<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Finding &quot;Anonymous&quot; in the Digital Archives: The Problem of ''Arden of Faversham''', ''Digital Scholarship in the Humanities'', 34 (2019), 855–73.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Empirical Middleton: ''Macbeth'', Adaptation, and Microauthorship', ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 65 (2014), 239–72.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Middleton and Rowley — and Heywood: ''The Old Law'' and New Attribution Technologies', ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'', 96 (2002), 165–217.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Shakespeare, ''Arden of Faversham'', and Four Forgotten Playwrights', ''The Review of English Studies'', 71 (2020), 867–95.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and ''The Bloody Banquet''', ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'', 94 (2000), 197–233.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, and John V. Nance, 'Imitation or Collaboration? Marlowe and the Early Shakespeare Canon', ''Shakespeare Survey'', 68 (2015), 32–47.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, John V. Nance, and Keegan Cooper, 'Shakespeare and Who? Aeschylus, ''Edward III'' and Thomas Kyd', ''Shakespeare Survey'', 70 (2017), 146–53.<br /> * Taylor, Gary and Rory Loughnane, 'The Canon and Chronology of Shakespeare's Works' in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 417-602.<br /> <br /> === V ===<br /> * Vickers, Brian, ''Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays'' (Oxford UP, 2002)<br /> <br /> === W ===<br /> * Wiggins, Martin, 'When Did Marlowe Write ''Dido, Queen of Carthage''?', ''The Review of English Studies'', 59 (2007), 521–41.<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created by Brett Greatley-Hirsch on 29 August 2021; updated by Rory Loughnane on 17 January 2023.<br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]<br /> [[Category:Loughnane, Rory]]<br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Glossary&diff=1206 2023-04-06T14:15:20Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Attribution scholarship, especially so-called &quot;non-traditional&quot; studies, typically relies on technical vocabulary. This page will provide glosses in plain language to demystify these unfamiliar terms and concepts.<br /> <br /> == A ==<br /> <br /> === algorithm ===<br /> A set of logical instructions or mathematical rules used to perform calculations and problem-solving operations, typically by a computer.<br /> <br /> == C ==<br /> <br /> === closed-class words ===<br /> A group or class of words to which new items are rarely added. Cf. [[#open-class_words|open-class words]].<br /> <br /> === content words ===<br /> '''also lexical words''' A term for a group of [[#open-class_words|open-class words]] that supply the lexical content of a sentence, as opposed to words whose purpose is primarily or exclusively grammatical (i.e., [[#function_words|function words]]). Content words include adjectives and nouns, as well as most verbs and adverbs. <br /> <br /> == F ==<br /> <br /> === function words ===<br /> '''also grammatical words''' A term for a group of [[#closed-class_words|closed-class words]] that carry little, no, or ambiguous lexical meaning but otherwise express grammatical relationships among other words in a sentence. Function words in English typically include auxiliary verbs, conjunctions, determiners (e.g. the definite and indefinite articles), particles, prepositions, pronouns, and some adverbs. Since they are essential to the structuring of sentences, function words are among the most frequently used words in written and spoken English. (Cf. [[#content_words|content words]].)<br /> <br /> == G ==<br /> <br /> === grammatical words ===<br /> See [[#function_words|function words]].<br /> <br /> == L ==<br /> <br /> === lexical words ===<br /> See [[#content_words|content words]].<br /> <br /> == M ==<br /> <br /> === machine learning ===<br /> A class of [[#algorithm|algorithm]] that analyse patterns and relationships in data to make determinations and predictions, using the outcomes of these operations to ''learn'' by iterations and improve future accuracy. Machine learning procedures may be [[#supervised|supervised]], requiring human intervention to provide pre-defined examples with which to ''train'' the algorithm, or [[#unsupervised|unsupervised]], where no human pre-processing of the data is required.<br /> <br /> == O ==<br /> <br /> === open-class words ===<br /> A group or class of words that accepts the addition of new items. Cf. [[#closed-class_words|closed-class words]].<br /> <br /> == S ==<br /> <br /> === supervised ===<br /> In the context of machine learning and statistical analysis, an [[#algorithm|algorithm]] that requires human intervention to provide pre-defined examples with which to [[#training|train]] is said to be ''supervised''. In attribution study, a typical supervised procedure may [[#training|train]] an [[#algorithm|algorithm]] on a corpus comprising texts of known authorship to identify [[#feature|features]] with which to test others. <br /> <br /> <br /> == T ==<br /> <br /> === text encoding ===<br /> <br /> A set of explicit instructions for the computational representation of text. Whereas a human reader of the text of ''Othello'', for example, is familiar with the conventions distinguishing the word &quot;Othello&quot; as it functions as a title, a running header, a speech prefix, or as a reference to the character in stage directions and dialogue, a computer generally requires these distinctions to be made explicit. Textual encoding or &quot;markup&quot; involves annotating or &quot;tagging&quot; to define units of text (from individual letters to entire documents) into categories. Linguistic features (e.g. grammatical part of speech, syntactic function, and so on) are commonly tagged to support natural language processing, and structural features are used to distinguish elements of text and paratext (e.g. title, dialogue, speech prefix, stage direction, prologue). Other kinds of analysis may require additional categories, such as tagging gender or social status.<br /> <br /> === token ===<br /> <br /> A concrete instance of a [[#type|type]]. &quot;I came, I saw, I conquered&quot;, for example, contains six word-tokens (excluding punctuation): &quot;came&quot;, &quot;saw&quot;, &quot;conquered&quot;, and three instances of &quot;I&quot;.<br /> <br /> === type ===<br /> <br /> A unique form; cf. [[#token|token]]. &quot;I came, I saw, I conquered&quot;, for example, contains four word-types (excluding punctuation): &quot;I&quot;, &quot;came&quot;, &quot;saw&quot;, and &quot;conquered&quot;.<br /> <br /> == U ==<br /> <br /> === unsupervised ===<br /> <br /> In the context of machine learning and statistical analysis, an [[#algorithm|algorithm]] that requires no human intervention or pre-processing of the data is said to be ''unsupervised''. This way, the [[#algorithm|algorithm]] processes the data without bias. Principal Components Analysis is an example of a widely used unsupervised method.<br /> <br /> == W ==<br /> <br /> === word-token ===<br /> See [[#token|token]].<br /> <br /> === word-type ===<br /> See [[#type|type]].<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by Brett Greatley-Hirsch; updated 29 August 2021.<br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]<br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Questions_to_Ask&diff=1205 2023-04-06T14:14:54Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Every computational, quantitative, or &quot;non-traditional&quot; authorship attribution study must be considered on its own merits. Nonetheless, there are several fundamental issues common to all studies of this kind. Framed around these issues, this page offers a series of questions one might ask when evaluating scholarship. <br /> <br /> This page should be read in conjunction with the [[Glossary|Glossary of Terms]]. <br /> <br /> Material presented here was originally prepared by Brett Greatley-Hirsch for an earlier version of his chapter, &quot;Computational Studies&quot;, in ''The Arden Research Companion to Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', 2020, [https://notwithoutmustard.net/docs/arden-comp2020.pdf PDF].<br /> <br /> == Is the data source accurate and reliable? ==<br /> <br /> Data provenance is a crucial – and an all-too-often overlooked – aspect of authorship attribution study (and quantitative criticism more broadly), because the accuracy and reliability of data are essential prerequisites for the analysis to have any validity. For example, an attribution study of early modern drama in which data for Shakespeare's plays derives from modern edited texts but the data for other playwrights comes from unedited sources proceeds on questionable grounds. These conditions also apply to metadata. In the previous example, the associated metadata might include details about each play's authorship, date, and genre; errors in any of these fields could render the analysis inaccurate.<br /> <br /> == Is the data fit for purpose? ==<br /> <br /> To be persuasive, arguments must be logically sound and supported by relevant evidence, and computational studies are not exempt from this standard. A stylometric analysis of patterns in early modern play-texts, for example, should not unwittingly include samples of non-dramatic verse and prose in the data. Fitness for purpose also means ensuring that the data, if not comprehensive, is a sufficiently representative sample from which to draw statistically significant results. For example, data from a small selection of Ben Jonson comedies is an insufficient sample from which to make statistically significant observations about the whole canon of early modern drama.<br /> <br /> == What features are selected? ==<br /> <br /> The range of features that scholars have analyzed in authorship attribution study is impressive – characters, words, phrases, n-grams, punctuation, contractions, oaths, word-length, vocabulary size, spelling, collocates, syntactic forms, line-length, sentence-length, pause patterns, rhymes, distances between classes of words – and the list continues to grow. ''What'' is counted, however, often is a more complicated matter than first meets the eye. Take the ''word'' as a feature, for instance: there is significant disparity between the various figured cited for Shakespeare’s vocabulary. This fact alone is not, as Jeffrey Kahan wrongly concludes, evidence that &quot;scholars could not even count words properly&quot; (2015: 829); rather, it confirms the effects of sourcing data from different texts and adopting different criteria for what constitutes a ''word''. <br /> <br /> Words may be counted severally as unique forms (&quot;types&quot;) or concrete instances of those forms (&quot;tokens&quot;), to which additional criteria apply. Are words counted as lemmas (dictionary-type headwords, such as counting ''shaking'', ''shaken'' and ''shook'' as instances of the lemma ''shake'')? Are homographs (words with shared spelling but different meaning or grammatical function, such as the noun and verb forms of ''will'') counted separately? Are contractions expanded or retained (such as treating ''she’ll'' as a single form or as instances of ''she'' and ''will'' respectively)? Are compound words separated or retained? Are variants in orthography and spelling retained or normalized (treating ''tother'' and ''t’other'' as distinct forms, for instance, or ''murther'' and ''murder'' as the same word)? There are further questions of inclusion and exclusion. For example, an attempt to quantify a playwright's vocabulary might limit the analysis to English words, thereby excluding any foreign-language passages. Likewise, an authorship attribution study might exclude from the analysis all editorial insertions, paratextual matter, and other elements of uncertain authorial status, such as stage directions, speech prefixes, and preliminaries. Other analyses may focus exclusively on words of a particular class (such as function or content words), syntactic form (such as personal pronouns), or frequency range (such as common or rare words).<br /> <br /> The data source should be prepared in such a way that supports accurate counting of selected features. In the case of texts, this typically involves textual encoding or ''markup'' – appending annotations or ''tags'' to classify units of text into categories, such as structural elements (dialogue, stage direction, speech prefixes), linguistic features (grammatical part of speech, syntactic function, normalized spelling, regularization, lemmata), and so on. Without textual encoding to provide explicit instructions, a computer will generally treat documents as undifferentiated sequences of alphanumeric characters and whitespace. Some tags (such as part-of-speech) can be added algorithmically, but these procedures are designed primarily for use with modern text (and correspondingly modern usages of grammar, vocabulary, and syntax). The orthography and spelling of early modern English text presents an additional pre-processing challenge. Although software to fully- or semi-automate the process of normalizing spelling in early modern English text is available (such as VARD and MorphAdorner), the results may not be sufficiently accurate without extensive human intervention. Thus, significant pre-processing of data is often required: proof-reading transcriptions, adding textual encoding, normalizing or regularizing features, checking the accuracy of these processes, and so on. Given the heavy costs of time and effort involved, scholars may be tempted to cut corners by using existing datasets indiscriminately and without further preparation or customization to properly fit their investigations.<br /> <br /> == How are the selected features counted? ==<br /> <br /> How features are counted is just as important a consideration as their selection. For example, the asymmetry of canon formation renders total word-types a misleading basis for comparing Shakespeare's dramatic vocabulary with his contemporaries’, whereas calculating the rate at which each playwright adopts new words by treating each play as if it was a new work gives more meaningful results (Craig 2011; Elliott and Valenza 2011). In addition to raw counts and rates, features may also be counted as ratios and proportions – especially useful when comparing frequencies across unequally sized samples. Another important consideration when counting textual features is segmentation: in the case of plays, for example, features might be counted across the whole text, or in smaller, logical segments of unequal size (such as by act, scene, character) or smaller, arbitrary segments of equal size (such as overlapping or non-overlapping blocks of ''n'' words). <br /> <br /> == How does the method process and/or manipulate the data? ==<br /> <br /> Unless standard statistical or mathematical procedures are used, readers should expect investigators to describe their methods in sufficient detail or to provide appropriate citations where such details can be found. The description should make clear whether the machine-learning algorithms are &quot;supervised&quot; or &quot;unsupervised&quot; – that is, whether or not the algorithm is supplied with metadata and examples from which to &quot;learn&quot; how to discriminate the data. Many authorship attribution methods, for example, involve ''training'' an algorithm to build a classifier by selecting and counting features that discriminate between a set of sample texts whose authorship is made known to the algorithm. The classifier can then be tested and refined by treating texts of known authorship as if they were unknown before being used to predict the authorship of anonymous texts. (The process is much the same for classifying categories besides authorship, such as genre, mode, period, and so on.) While each method will manipulate data differently, there are some common operations, such as data reduction and visualization.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> Craig, Hugh. (2011), ‘Shakespeare’s Vocabulary: Myth and Reality’, ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 62(1): 53–74.<br /> <br /> Elliott, Ward E.Y. and Robert J. Valenza. (2011), ‘Shakespeare’s Vocabulary: Did It Dwarf All Others?’ in Mireille Ravassat and Jonathan Culpeper (eds), ''Stylistics and Shakespeare’s Language: Transdisciplinary Approaches'', 34–57, London: Continuum.<br /> <br /> Greatley-Hirsch, Brett. (2020), ‘Computational Studies’, in Evelyn Gajowski (ed), ''The Arden Research Handbook of Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', 205–21, London: Arden Shakespeare. [https://notwithoutmustard.net/docs/arden-comp2020.pdf PDF].<br /> <br /> Kahan, Jeffrey. (2015), ‘“I tell you what mine author says”: A Brief History of Stylometrics’, ''ELH'', 82(3): 815–44.<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by Brett Greatley-Hirsch; updated 27 August 2021.<br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]<br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Documents&diff=1204 2023-04-06T14:14:37Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Attribution scholars rely on a variety of historical documents for information about authorship. Such sources of so-called ''external evidence'' of authorship include: entries in the Stationers' Register; references in correspondence, diaries, and biographies; ledgers and receipts; legal records; playlists compiled by stationers; and so on.<br /> <br /> This page hosts or links to transcriptions and/or digital images of such documents.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> == Bibliographies ==<br /> <br /> * Greg, W.W., ed., ''A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration'', 4 vols (London: Bibliographical Society, 1939–59). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg_f0w9 Internet Archive]] (Vol. 3) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0003greg Internet Archive]] (Vol. 4) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg_o4g0 Internet Archive]]<br /> <br /> == Stationers' Register ==<br /> * Arber, Edwards, ed., ''A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London; 1554–1640'', 5 vols (London, 1875–1894). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[http://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435072530868 HathiTrust]] (Vol. 2) [[http://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435023215767 HathiTrust]] [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015078263228 HathiTrust]] [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951001490149p HathiTrust]]<br /> * Bergel, Giles, and Ian Gadd, eds, ''Stationers' Register Online'', CREATe, University of Glasgow, [[https://stationersregister.online/ stationersregister.online]]<br /> * Eyre, G.E.B., and C.R. Rivington, eds, ''A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers from 1640–1708'', 3 vols (London, 1913–14). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678452 HathiTrust]] [[https://archive.org/details/1913transcriptof01statuoft Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678445 HathiTrust]] (Vol. 3) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678437 HathiTrust]]<br /> <br /> == Henslowe's Diary ==<br /> <br /> * Greg, W.W., ed., ''Henslowe's Diary'', 2 vols (London: A.H. Bullen, 1908). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://archive.org/details/cu31924026121305 Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://archive.org/details/cu31924026121313 Internet Archive]]<br /> * Ioppolo, Grace, ed., ''The Henslowe-Alleyn Digitisation Project''. See esp. [[https://henslowe-alleyn.org.uk/catalogue/mss-7/ page images of Dulwich College Library MSS 7]]<br /> <br /> == Records of Early English Drama (REED) ==<br /> <br /> * [[https://ereed.library.utoronto.ca/ REED Online]] (currently includes materials on Berkshire, Hampshire, Staffordshire, and the Rose Playhouse Prototype)<br /> <br /> == Playlists ==<br /> <br /> * Archer's List (1656). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Archer%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Beeston's List (1639). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Beeston%27s_List Lost Plays Database]<br /> * Brooke's List (1658). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Brooke%27s_list Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Harington's List (c. 1612). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Harington%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Hill's List of Early Plays in Manuscript (c. 1677–1703). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Hill%27s_List_of_Early_Plays_in_Manuscript Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * King's Men repertory list (1641). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/King%27s_Men_repertory_list_(1641) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Marriott's List (1653). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Marriott%27s_List_(1653) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Henry Oxinden's List (c. 1663–65). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Henry_Oxinden%27s_list_(ca._1663-65) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Rogers and Ley's List (1656). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Rogers_and_Ley%27s_List_(1656) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Warburton's List (c. 1682–1759). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Warburton%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> <br /> == Biographies ==<br /> <br /> * Phillips, Edward, ''Theatrum Poetarum'' (London, 1675), Wing P2075. Page images: [[https://archive.org/details/theatrumpoetaru01philgoog Internet Archive]] | Transcription: [[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A54754.0001.001 EEBO-TCP Phase I]]<br /> * Winstanley, William, ''The lives of the most famous English Poets, or the Honour of Parnassus'' (London, 1687), Wing W3065. Page images: [[https://archive.org/details/livesofmostfamou00wins_0 Internet Archive]] | Transcription: [[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A66698.0001.001?view=toc EEBO-TCP Phase I]]<br /> <br /> == Extracts ==<br /> <br /> * Cotgrave, John, ''The English Treasury of Wit and Language'' (London, 1655), Wing C6368. Page images: [[https://archive.org/stream/englishtreasuryo00cotg Internet Archive]] | See also [[https://shakespeareauthorship.com/cotgrave/ Cotgrave Online]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by Brett Greatley-Hirsch; updated on 31 August 2021.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]<br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Documents&diff=1203 2023-04-06T14:13:17Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Attribution scholars rely on a variety of historical documents for information about authorship. Such sources of so-called ''external evidence'' of authorship include: entries in the Stationers' Register; references in correspondence, diaries, and biographies; ledgers and receipts; legal records; playlists compiled by stationers; and so on.<br /> <br /> This page hosts or links to transcriptions and/or digital images of such documents.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> == Bibliographies ==<br /> <br /> * Greg, W.W., ed., ''A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration'', 4 vols (London: Bibliographical Society, 1939–59). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg_f0w9 Internet Archive]] (Vol. 3) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0003greg Internet Archive]] (Vol. 4) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg_o4g0 Internet Archive]]<br /> <br /> == Stationers' Register ==<br /> * Arber, Edwards, ed., ''A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London; 1554–1640'', 5 vols (London, 1875–1894). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[http://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435072530868 HathiTrust]] (Vol. 2) [[http://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435023215767 HathiTrust]] [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015078263228 HathiTrust]] [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951001490149p HathiTrust]]<br /> * Bergel, Giles, and Ian Gadd, eds, ''Stationers' Register Online'', CREATe, University of Glasgow, [[https://stationersregister.online/ stationersregister.online]]<br /> * Eyre, G.E.B., and C.R. Rivington, eds, ''A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers from 1640–1708'', 3 vols (London, 1913–14). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678452 HathiTrust]] [[https://archive.org/details/1913transcriptof01statuoft Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678445 HathiTrust]] (Vol. 3) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678437 HathiTrust]]<br /> <br /> == Henslowe's Diary ==<br /> <br /> * Greg, W.W., ed., ''Henslowe's Diary'', 2 vols (London: A.H. Bullen, 1908). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://archive.org/details/cu31924026121305 Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://archive.org/details/cu31924026121313 Internet Archive]]<br /> * Ioppolo, Grace, ed., ''The Henslowe-Alleyn Digitisation Project''. See esp. [[https://henslowe-alleyn.org.uk/catalogue/mss-7/ page images of Dulwich College Library MSS 7]]<br /> <br /> == Records of Early English Drama (REED) ==<br /> <br /> * [[https://ereed.library.utoronto.ca/ REED Online]] (currently includes materials on Berkshire, Hampshire, Staffordshire, and the Rose Playhouse Prototype)<br /> <br /> == Playlists ==<br /> <br /> * Archer's List (1656). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Archer%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Beeston's List (1639). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Beeston%27s_List Lost Plays Database]<br /> * Brooke's List (1658). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Brooke%27s_list Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Harington's List (c. 1612). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Harington%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Hill's List of Early Plays in Manuscript (c. 1677–1703). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Hill%27s_List_of_Early_Plays_in_Manuscript Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * King's Men repertory list (1641). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/King%27s_Men_repertory_list_(1641) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Marriott's List (1653). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Marriott%27s_List_(1653) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Henry Oxinden's List (c. 1663–65). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Henry_Oxinden%27s_list_(ca._1663-65) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Rogers and Ley's List (1656). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Rogers_and_Ley%27s_List_(1656) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Warburton's List (c. 1682–1759). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Warburton%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> <br /> == Biographies ==<br /> <br /> * Phillips, Edward, ''Theatrum Poetarum'' (London, 1675), Wing P2075. Page images: [[https://archive.org/details/theatrumpoetaru01philgoog Internet Archive]] | Transcription: [[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A54754.0001.001 EEBO-TCP Phase I]]<br /> * Winstanley, William, ''The lives of the most famous English Poets, or the Honour of Parnassus'' (London, 1687), Wing W3065. Page images: [[https://archive.org/details/livesofmostfamou00wins_0 Internet Archive]] | Transcription: [[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A66698.0001.001?view=toc EEBO-TCP Phase I]]<br /> <br /> == Extracts ==<br /> <br /> * Cotgrave, John, ''The English Treasury of Wit and Language'' (London, 1655), Wing C6368. Page images: [[https://archive.org/stream/englishtreasuryo00cotg Internet Archive]] | See also [[https://shakespeareauthorship.com/cotgrave/ Cotgrave Online]]<br /> <br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by Brett Greatley-Hirsch; updated on 31 August 2021.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]<br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Questions_to_Ask&diff=1202 2023-04-06T14:12:36Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Every computational, quantitative, or &quot;non-traditional&quot; authorship attribution study must be considered on its own merits. Nonetheless, there are several fundamental issues common to all studies of this kind. Framed around these issues, this page offers a series of questions one might ask when evaluating scholarship. <br /> <br /> This page should be read in conjunction with the [[Glossary|Glossary of Terms]]. <br /> <br /> Material presented here was originally prepared by Brett Greatley-Hirsch for an earlier version of his chapter, &quot;Computational Studies&quot;, in ''The Arden Research Companion to Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', 2020, [https://notwithoutmustard.net/docs/arden-comp2020.pdf PDF].<br /> <br /> == Is the data source accurate and reliable? ==<br /> <br /> Data provenance is a crucial – and an all-too-often overlooked – aspect of authorship attribution study (and quantitative criticism more broadly), because the accuracy and reliability of data are essential prerequisites for the analysis to have any validity. For example, an attribution study of early modern drama in which data for Shakespeare's plays derives from modern edited texts but the data for other playwrights comes from unedited sources proceeds on questionable grounds. These conditions also apply to metadata. In the previous example, the associated metadata might include details about each play's authorship, date, and genre; errors in any of these fields could render the analysis inaccurate.<br /> <br /> == Is the data fit for purpose? ==<br /> <br /> To be persuasive, arguments must be logically sound and supported by relevant evidence, and computational studies are not exempt from this standard. A stylometric analysis of patterns in early modern play-texts, for example, should not unwittingly include samples of non-dramatic verse and prose in the data. Fitness for purpose also means ensuring that the data, if not comprehensive, is a sufficiently representative sample from which to draw statistically significant results. For example, data from a small selection of Ben Jonson comedies is an insufficient sample from which to make statistically significant observations about the whole canon of early modern drama.<br /> <br /> == What features are selected? ==<br /> <br /> The range of features that scholars have analyzed in authorship attribution study is impressive – characters, words, phrases, n-grams, punctuation, contractions, oaths, word-length, vocabulary size, spelling, collocates, syntactic forms, line-length, sentence-length, pause patterns, rhymes, distances between classes of words – and the list continues to grow. ''What'' is counted, however, often is a more complicated matter than first meets the eye. Take the ''word'' as a feature, for instance: there is significant disparity between the various figured cited for Shakespeare’s vocabulary. This fact alone is not, as Jeffrey Kahan wrongly concludes, evidence that &quot;scholars could not even count words properly&quot; (2015: 829); rather, it confirms the effects of sourcing data from different texts and adopting different criteria for what constitutes a ''word''. <br /> <br /> Words may be counted severally as unique forms (&quot;types&quot;) or concrete instances of those forms (&quot;tokens&quot;), to which additional criteria apply. Are words counted as lemmas (dictionary-type headwords, such as counting ''shaking'', ''shaken'' and ''shook'' as instances of the lemma ''shake'')? Are homographs (words with shared spelling but different meaning or grammatical function, such as the noun and verb forms of ''will'') counted separately? Are contractions expanded or retained (such as treating ''she’ll'' as a single form or as instances of ''she'' and ''will'' respectively)? Are compound words separated or retained? Are variants in orthography and spelling retained or normalized (treating ''tother'' and ''t’other'' as distinct forms, for instance, or ''murther'' and ''murder'' as the same word)? There are further questions of inclusion and exclusion. For example, an attempt to quantify a playwright's vocabulary might limit the analysis to English words, thereby excluding any foreign-language passages. Likewise, an authorship attribution study might exclude from the analysis all editorial insertions, paratextual matter, and other elements of uncertain authorial status, such as stage directions, speech prefixes, and preliminaries. Other analyses may focus exclusively on words of a particular class (such as function or content words), syntactic form (such as personal pronouns), or frequency range (such as common or rare words).<br /> <br /> The data source should be prepared in such a way that supports accurate counting of selected features. In the case of texts, this typically involves textual encoding or ''markup'' – appending annotations or ''tags'' to classify units of text into categories, such as structural elements (dialogue, stage direction, speech prefixes), linguistic features (grammatical part of speech, syntactic function, normalized spelling, regularization, lemmata), and so on. Without textual encoding to provide explicit instructions, a computer will generally treat documents as undifferentiated sequences of alphanumeric characters and whitespace. Some tags (such as part-of-speech) can be added algorithmically, but these procedures are designed primarily for use with modern text (and correspondingly modern usages of grammar, vocabulary, and syntax). The orthography and spelling of early modern English text presents an additional pre-processing challenge. Although software to fully- or semi-automate the process of normalizing spelling in early modern English text is available (such as VARD and MorphAdorner), the results may not be sufficiently accurate without extensive human intervention. Thus, significant pre-processing of data is often required: proof-reading transcriptions, adding textual encoding, normalizing or regularizing features, checking the accuracy of these processes, and so on. Given the heavy costs of time and effort involved, scholars may be tempted to cut corners by using existing datasets indiscriminately and without further preparation or customization to properly fit their investigations.<br /> <br /> == How are the selected features counted? ==<br /> <br /> How features are counted is just as important a consideration as their selection. For example, the asymmetry of canon formation renders total word-types a misleading basis for comparing Shakespeare's dramatic vocabulary with his contemporaries’, whereas calculating the rate at which each playwright adopts new words by treating each play as if it was a new work gives more meaningful results (Craig 2011; Elliott and Valenza 2011). In addition to raw counts and rates, features may also be counted as ratios and proportions – especially useful when comparing frequencies across unequally sized samples. Another important consideration when counting textual features is segmentation: in the case of plays, for example, features might be counted across the whole text, or in smaller, logical segments of unequal size (such as by act, scene, character) or smaller, arbitrary segments of equal size (such as overlapping or non-overlapping blocks of ''n'' words). <br /> <br /> == How does the method process and/or manipulate the data? ==<br /> <br /> Unless standard statistical or mathematical procedures are used, readers should expect investigators to describe their methods in sufficient detail or to provide appropriate citations where such details can be found. The description should make clear whether the machine-learning algorithms are &quot;supervised&quot; or &quot;unsupervised&quot; – that is, whether or not the algorithm is supplied with metadata and examples from which to &quot;learn&quot; how to discriminate the data. Many authorship attribution methods, for example, involve ''training'' an algorithm to build a classifier by selecting and counting features that discriminate between a set of sample texts whose authorship is made known to the algorithm. The classifier can then be tested and refined by treating texts of known authorship as if they were unknown before being used to predict the authorship of anonymous texts. (The process is much the same for classifying categories besides authorship, such as genre, mode, period, and so on.) While each method will manipulate data differently, there are some common operations, such as data reduction and visualization.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> Craig, Hugh. (2011), ‘Shakespeare’s Vocabulary: Myth and Reality’, ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 62(1): 53–74.<br /> <br /> Elliott, Ward E.Y. and Robert J. Valenza. (2011), ‘Shakespeare’s Vocabulary: Did It Dwarf All Others?’ in Mireille Ravassat and Jonathan Culpeper (eds), ''Stylistics and Shakespeare’s Language: Transdisciplinary Approaches'', 34–57, London: Continuum.<br /> <br /> Greatley-Hirsch, Brett. (2020), ‘Computational Studies’, in Evelyn Gajowski (ed), ''The Arden Research Handbook of Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', 205–21, London: Arden Shakespeare. [https://notwithoutmustard.net/docs/arden-comp2020.pdf PDF].<br /> <br /> Kahan, Jeffrey. (2015), ‘“I tell you what mine author says”: A Brief History of Stylometrics’, ''ELH'', 82(3): 815–44.<br /> <br /> <br /> Page created and maintained by Brett Greatley-Hirsch; updated 27 August 2021.<br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]<br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Questions_to_Ask&diff=1201 2023-04-06T14:12:19Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Every computational, quantitative, or &quot;non-traditional&quot; authorship attribution study must be considered on its own merits. Nonetheless, there are several fundamental issues common to all studies of this kind. Framed around these issues, this page offers a series of questions one might ask when evaluating scholarship. <br /> <br /> This page should be read in conjunction with the [[Glossary|Glossary of Terms]]. <br /> <br /> Material presented here was originally prepared by Brett Greatley-Hirsch for an earlier version of his chapter, &quot;Computational Studies&quot;, in ''The Arden Research Companion to Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', 2020, [https://notwithoutmustard.net/docs/arden-comp2020.pdf PDF].<br /> <br /> == Is the data source accurate and reliable? ==<br /> <br /> Data provenance is a crucial – and an all-too-often overlooked – aspect of authorship attribution study (and quantitative criticism more broadly), because the accuracy and reliability of data are essential prerequisites for the analysis to have any validity. For example, an attribution study of early modern drama in which data for Shakespeare's plays derives from modern edited texts but the data for other playwrights comes from unedited sources proceeds on questionable grounds. These conditions also apply to metadata. In the previous example, the associated metadata might include details about each play's authorship, date, and genre; errors in any of these fields could render the analysis inaccurate.<br /> <br /> == Is the data fit for purpose? ==<br /> <br /> To be persuasive, arguments must be logically sound and supported by relevant evidence, and computational studies are not exempt from this standard. A stylometric analysis of patterns in early modern play-texts, for example, should not unwittingly include samples of non-dramatic verse and prose in the data. Fitness for purpose also means ensuring that the data, if not comprehensive, is a sufficiently representative sample from which to draw statistically significant results. For example, data from a small selection of Ben Jonson comedies is an insufficient sample from which to make statistically significant observations about the whole canon of early modern drama.<br /> <br /> == What features are selected? ==<br /> <br /> The range of features that scholars have analyzed in authorship attribution study is impressive – characters, words, phrases, n-grams, punctuation, contractions, oaths, word-length, vocabulary size, spelling, collocates, syntactic forms, line-length, sentence-length, pause patterns, rhymes, distances between classes of words – and the list continues to grow. ''What'' is counted, however, often is a more complicated matter than first meets the eye. Take the ''word'' as a feature, for instance: there is significant disparity between the various figured cited for Shakespeare’s vocabulary. This fact alone is not, as Jeffrey Kahan wrongly concludes, evidence that &quot;scholars could not even count words properly&quot; (2015: 829); rather, it confirms the effects of sourcing data from different texts and adopting different criteria for what constitutes a ''word''. <br /> <br /> Words may be counted severally as unique forms (&quot;types&quot;) or concrete instances of those forms (&quot;tokens&quot;), to which additional criteria apply. Are words counted as lemmas (dictionary-type headwords, such as counting ''shaking'', ''shaken'' and ''shook'' as instances of the lemma ''shake'')? Are homographs (words with shared spelling but different meaning or grammatical function, such as the noun and verb forms of ''will'') counted separately? Are contractions expanded or retained (such as treating ''she’ll'' as a single form or as instances of ''she'' and ''will'' respectively)? Are compound words separated or retained? Are variants in orthography and spelling retained or normalized (treating ''tother'' and ''t’other'' as distinct forms, for instance, or ''murther'' and ''murder'' as the same word)? There are further questions of inclusion and exclusion. For example, an attempt to quantify a playwright's vocabulary might limit the analysis to English words, thereby excluding any foreign-language passages. Likewise, an authorship attribution study might exclude from the analysis all editorial insertions, paratextual matter, and other elements of uncertain authorial status, such as stage directions, speech prefixes, and preliminaries. Other analyses may focus exclusively on words of a particular class (such as function or content words), syntactic form (such as personal pronouns), or frequency range (such as common or rare words).<br /> <br /> The data source should be prepared in such a way that supports accurate counting of selected features. In the case of texts, this typically involves textual encoding or ''markup'' – appending annotations or ''tags'' to classify units of text into categories, such as structural elements (dialogue, stage direction, speech prefixes), linguistic features (grammatical part of speech, syntactic function, normalized spelling, regularization, lemmata), and so on. Without textual encoding to provide explicit instructions, a computer will generally treat documents as undifferentiated sequences of alphanumeric characters and whitespace. Some tags (such as part-of-speech) can be added algorithmically, but these procedures are designed primarily for use with modern text (and correspondingly modern usages of grammar, vocabulary, and syntax). The orthography and spelling of early modern English text presents an additional pre-processing challenge. Although software to fully- or semi-automate the process of normalizing spelling in early modern English text is available (such as VARD and MorphAdorner), the results may not be sufficiently accurate without extensive human intervention. Thus, significant pre-processing of data is often required: proof-reading transcriptions, adding textual encoding, normalizing or regularizing features, checking the accuracy of these processes, and so on. Given the heavy costs of time and effort involved, scholars may be tempted to cut corners by using existing datasets indiscriminately and without further preparation or customization to properly fit their investigations.<br /> <br /> == How are the selected features counted? ==<br /> <br /> How features are counted is just as important a consideration as their selection. For example, the asymmetry of canon formation renders total word-types a misleading basis for comparing Shakespeare's dramatic vocabulary with his contemporaries’, whereas calculating the rate at which each playwright adopts new words by treating each play as if it was a new work gives more meaningful results (Craig 2011; Elliott and Valenza 2011). In addition to raw counts and rates, features may also be counted as ratios and proportions – especially useful when comparing frequencies across unequally sized samples. Another important consideration when counting textual features is segmentation: in the case of plays, for example, features might be counted across the whole text, or in smaller, logical segments of unequal size (such as by act, scene, character) or smaller, arbitrary segments of equal size (such as overlapping or non-overlapping blocks of ''n'' words). <br /> <br /> == How does the method process and/or manipulate the data? ==<br /> <br /> Unless standard statistical or mathematical procedures are used, readers should expect investigators to describe their methods in sufficient detail or to provide appropriate citations where such details can be found. The description should make clear whether the machine-learning algorithms are &quot;supervised&quot; or &quot;unsupervised&quot; – that is, whether or not the algorithm is supplied with metadata and examples from which to &quot;learn&quot; how to discriminate the data. Many authorship attribution methods, for example, involve ''training'' an algorithm to build a classifier by selecting and counting features that discriminate between a set of sample texts whose authorship is made known to the algorithm. The classifier can then be tested and refined by treating texts of known authorship as if they were unknown before being used to predict the authorship of anonymous texts. (The process is much the same for classifying categories besides authorship, such as genre, mode, period, and so on.) While each method will manipulate data differently, there are some common operations, such as data reduction and visualization.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> Craig, Hugh. (2011), ‘Shakespeare’s Vocabulary: Myth and Reality’, ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 62(1): 53–74.<br /> <br /> Elliott, Ward E.Y. and Robert J. Valenza. (2011), ‘Shakespeare’s Vocabulary: Did It Dwarf All Others?’ in Mireille Ravassat and Jonathan Culpeper (eds), ''Stylistics and Shakespeare’s Language: Transdisciplinary Approaches'', 34–57, London: Continuum.<br /> <br /> Greatley-Hirsch, Brett. (2020), ‘Computational Studies’, in Evelyn Gajowski (ed), ''The Arden Research Handbook of Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', 205–21, London: Arden Shakespeare. [https://notwithoutmustard.net/docs/arden-comp2020.pdf PDF].<br /> <br /> Kahan, Jeffrey. (2015), ‘“I tell you what mine author says”: A Brief History of Stylometrics’, ''ELH'', 82(3): 815–44.<br /> <br /> === Version History ===<br /> Page created and maintained by Brett Greatley-Hirsch; updated 27 August 2021.<br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]<br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Questions_to_Ask&diff=1200 2023-04-06T14:09:37Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Every computational, quantitative, or &quot;non-traditional&quot; authorship attribution study must be considered on its own merits. Nonetheless, there are several fundamental issues common to all studies of this kind. Framed around these issues, this page offers a series of questions one might ask when evaluating scholarship. <br /> <br /> This page should be read in conjunction with the [[Glossary|Glossary of Terms]]. <br /> <br /> Material presented here was originally prepared by Brett Greatley-Hirsch for an earlier version of his chapter, &quot;Computational Studies&quot;, in ''The Arden Research Companion to Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', 2020, [https://notwithoutmustard.net/docs/arden-comp2020.pdf PDF].<br /> <br /> == Is the data source accurate and reliable? ==<br /> <br /> Data provenance is a crucial – and an all-too-often overlooked – aspect of authorship attribution study (and quantitative criticism more broadly), because the accuracy and reliability of data are essential prerequisites for the analysis to have any validity. For example, an attribution study of early modern drama in which data for Shakespeare's plays derives from modern edited texts but the data for other playwrights comes from unedited sources proceeds on questionable grounds. These conditions also apply to metadata. In the previous example, the associated metadata might include details about each play's authorship, date, and genre; errors in any of these fields could render the analysis inaccurate.<br /> <br /> == Is the data fit for purpose? ==<br /> <br /> To be persuasive, arguments must be logically sound and supported by relevant evidence, and computational studies are not exempt from this standard. A stylometric analysis of patterns in early modern play-texts, for example, should not unwittingly include samples of non-dramatic verse and prose in the data. Fitness for purpose also means ensuring that the data, if not comprehensive, is a sufficiently representative sample from which to draw statistically significant results. For example, data from a small selection of Ben Jonson comedies is an insufficient sample from which to make statistically significant observations about the whole canon of early modern drama.<br /> <br /> == What features are selected? ==<br /> <br /> The range of features that scholars have analyzed in authorship attribution study is impressive – characters, words, phrases, n-grams, punctuation, contractions, oaths, word-length, vocabulary size, spelling, collocates, syntactic forms, line-length, sentence-length, pause patterns, rhymes, distances between classes of words – and the list continues to grow. ''What'' is counted, however, often is a more complicated matter than first meets the eye. Take the ''word'' as a feature, for instance: there is significant disparity between the various figured cited for Shakespeare’s vocabulary. This fact alone is not, as Jeffrey Kahan wrongly concludes, evidence that &quot;scholars could not even count words properly&quot; (2015: 829); rather, it confirms the effects of sourcing data from different texts and adopting different criteria for what constitutes a ''word''. <br /> <br /> Words may be counted severally as unique forms (&quot;types&quot;) or concrete instances of those forms (&quot;tokens&quot;), to which additional criteria apply. Are words counted as lemmas (dictionary-type headwords, such as counting ''shaking'', ''shaken'' and ''shook'' as instances of the lemma ''shake'')? Are homographs (words with shared spelling but different meaning or grammatical function, such as the noun and verb forms of ''will'') counted separately? Are contractions expanded or retained (such as treating ''she’ll'' as a single form or as instances of ''she'' and ''will'' respectively)? Are compound words separated or retained? Are variants in orthography and spelling retained or normalized (treating ''tother'' and ''t’other'' as distinct forms, for instance, or ''murther'' and ''murder'' as the same word)? There are further questions of inclusion and exclusion. For example, an attempt to quantify a playwright's vocabulary might limit the analysis to English words, thereby excluding any foreign-language passages. Likewise, an authorship attribution study might exclude from the analysis all editorial insertions, paratextual matter, and other elements of uncertain authorial status, such as stage directions, speech prefixes, and preliminaries. Other analyses may focus exclusively on words of a particular class (such as function or content words), syntactic form (such as personal pronouns), or frequency range (such as common or rare words).<br /> <br /> The data source should be prepared in such a way that supports accurate counting of selected features. In the case of texts, this typically involves textual encoding or ''markup'' – appending annotations or ''tags'' to classify units of text into categories, such as structural elements (dialogue, stage direction, speech prefixes), linguistic features (grammatical part of speech, syntactic function, normalized spelling, regularization, lemmata), and so on. Without textual encoding to provide explicit instructions, a computer will generally treat documents as undifferentiated sequences of alphanumeric characters and whitespace. Some tags (such as part-of-speech) can be added algorithmically, but these procedures are designed primarily for use with modern text (and correspondingly modern usages of grammar, vocabulary, and syntax). The orthography and spelling of early modern English text presents an additional pre-processing challenge. Although software to fully- or semi-automate the process of normalizing spelling in early modern English text is available (such as VARD and MorphAdorner), the results may not be sufficiently accurate without extensive human intervention. Thus, significant pre-processing of data is often required: proof-reading transcriptions, adding textual encoding, normalizing or regularizing features, checking the accuracy of these processes, and so on. Given the heavy costs of time and effort involved, scholars may be tempted to cut corners by using existing datasets indiscriminately and without further preparation or customization to properly fit their investigations.<br /> <br /> == How are the selected features counted? ==<br /> <br /> How features are counted is just as important a consideration as their selection. For example, the asymmetry of canon formation renders total word-types a misleading basis for comparing Shakespeare's dramatic vocabulary with his contemporaries’, whereas calculating the rate at which each playwright adopts new words by treating each play as if it was a new work gives more meaningful results (Craig 2011; Elliott and Valenza 2011). In addition to raw counts and rates, features may also be counted as ratios and proportions – especially useful when comparing frequencies across unequally sized samples. Another important consideration when counting textual features is segmentation: in the case of plays, for example, features might be counted across the whole text, or in smaller, logical segments of unequal size (such as by act, scene, character) or smaller, arbitrary segments of equal size (such as overlapping or non-overlapping blocks of ''n'' words). <br /> <br /> == How does the method process and/or manipulate the data? ==<br /> <br /> Unless standard statistical or mathematical procedures are used, readers should expect investigators to describe their methods in sufficient detail or to provide appropriate citations where such details can be found. The description should make clear whether the machine-learning algorithms are &quot;supervised&quot; or &quot;unsupervised&quot; – that is, whether or not the algorithm is supplied with metadata and examples from which to &quot;learn&quot; how to discriminate the data. Many authorship attribution methods, for example, involve ''training'' an algorithm to build a classifier by selecting and counting features that discriminate between a set of sample texts whose authorship is made known to the algorithm. The classifier can then be tested and refined by treating texts of known authorship as if they were unknown before being used to predict the authorship of anonymous texts. (The process is much the same for classifying categories besides authorship, such as genre, mode, period, and so on.) While each method will manipulate data differently, there are some common operations, such as data reduction and visualization.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> Craig, Hugh. (2011), ‘Shakespeare’s Vocabulary: Myth and Reality’, ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 62(1): 53–74.<br /> <br /> Elliott, Ward E.Y. and Robert J. Valenza. (2011), ‘Shakespeare’s Vocabulary: Did It Dwarf All Others?’ in Mireille Ravassat and Jonathan Culpeper (eds), ''Stylistics and Shakespeare’s Language: Transdisciplinary Approaches'', 34–57, London: Continuum.<br /> <br /> Greatley-Hirsch, Brett. (2020), ‘Computational Studies’, in Evelyn Gajowski (ed), ''The Arden Research Handbook of Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', 205–21, London: Arden Shakespeare. [https://notwithoutmustard.net/docs/arden-comp2020.pdf PDF].<br /> <br /> Kahan, Jeffrey. (2015), ‘“I tell you what mine author says”: A Brief History of Stylometrics’, ''ELH'', 82(3): 815–44.<br /> <br /> === Version History ===<br /> Added on 27 August 2021 by Brett Greatley-Hirsch.<br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]<br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Documents&diff=1199 2023-04-06T14:07:53Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Attribution scholars rely on a variety of historical documents for information about authorship. Such sources of so-called ''external evidence'' of authorship include: entries in the Stationers' Register; references in correspondence, diaries, and biographies; ledgers and receipts; legal records; playlists compiled by stationers; and so on.<br /> <br /> This page hosts or links to transcriptions and/or digital images of such documents.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> == Bibliographies ==<br /> <br /> * Greg, W.W., ed., ''A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration'', 4 vols (London: Bibliographical Society, 1939–59). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg_f0w9 Internet Archive]] (Vol. 3) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0003greg Internet Archive]] (Vol. 4) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg_o4g0 Internet Archive]]<br /> <br /> == Stationers' Register ==<br /> * Arber, Edwards, ed., ''A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London; 1554–1640'', 5 vols (London, 1875–1894). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[http://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435072530868 HathiTrust]] (Vol. 2) [[http://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435023215767 HathiTrust]] [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015078263228 HathiTrust]] [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951001490149p HathiTrust]]<br /> * Bergel, Giles, and Ian Gadd, eds, ''Stationers' Register Online'', CREATe, University of Glasgow, [[https://stationersregister.online/ stationersregister.online]]<br /> * Eyre, G.E.B., and C.R. Rivington, eds, ''A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers from 1640–1708'', 3 vols (London, 1913–14). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678452 HathiTrust]] [[https://archive.org/details/1913transcriptof01statuoft Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678445 HathiTrust]] (Vol. 3) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678437 HathiTrust]]<br /> <br /> == Henslowe's Diary ==<br /> <br /> * Greg, W.W., ed., ''Henslowe's Diary'', 2 vols (London: A.H. Bullen, 1908). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://archive.org/details/cu31924026121305 Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://archive.org/details/cu31924026121313 Internet Archive]]<br /> * Ioppolo, Grace, ed., ''The Henslowe-Alleyn Digitisation Project''. See esp. [[https://henslowe-alleyn.org.uk/catalogue/mss-7/ page images of Dulwich College Library MSS 7]]<br /> <br /> == Records of Early English Drama (REED) ==<br /> <br /> * [[https://ereed.library.utoronto.ca/ REED Online]] (currently includes materials on Berkshire, Hampshire, Staffordshire, and the Rose Playhouse Prototype)<br /> <br /> == Playlists ==<br /> <br /> * Archer's List (1656). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Archer%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Beeston's List (1639). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Beeston%27s_List Lost Plays Database]<br /> * Brooke's List (1658). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Brooke%27s_list Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Harington's List (c. 1612). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Harington%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Hill's List of Early Plays in Manuscript (c. 1677–1703). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Hill%27s_List_of_Early_Plays_in_Manuscript Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * King's Men repertory list (1641). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/King%27s_Men_repertory_list_(1641) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Marriott's List (1653). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Marriott%27s_List_(1653) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Henry Oxinden's List (c. 1663–65). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Henry_Oxinden%27s_list_(ca._1663-65) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Rogers and Ley's List (1656). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Rogers_and_Ley%27s_List_(1656) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Warburton's List (c. 1682–1759). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Warburton%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> <br /> == Biographies ==<br /> <br /> * Phillips, Edward, ''Theatrum Poetarum'' (London, 1675), Wing P2075. Page images: [[https://archive.org/details/theatrumpoetaru01philgoog Internet Archive]] | Transcription: [[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A54754.0001.001 EEBO-TCP Phase I]]<br /> * Winstanley, William, ''The lives of the most famous English Poets, or the Honour of Parnassus'' (London, 1687), Wing W3065. Page images: [[https://archive.org/details/livesofmostfamou00wins_0 Internet Archive]] | Transcription: [[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A66698.0001.001?view=toc EEBO-TCP Phase I]]<br /> <br /> == Extracts ==<br /> <br /> * Cotgrave, John, ''The English Treasury of Wit and Language'' (London, 1655), Wing C6368. Page images: [[https://archive.org/stream/englishtreasuryo00cotg Internet Archive]] | See also [[https://shakespeareauthorship.com/cotgrave/ Cotgrave Online]]<br /> <br /> == Version ==<br /> Latest version edited on 31 August 2021 by Brett Greatley-Hirsch.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]<br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Documents&diff=1198 2023-04-06T14:07:10Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>Attribution scholars rely on a variety of historical documents for information about authorship. Such sources of so-called ''external evidence'' of authorship include: entries in the Stationers' Register; references in correspondence, diaries, and biographies; ledgers and receipts; legal records; playlists compiled by stationers; and so on.<br /> <br /> This page hosts or links to transcriptions and/or digital images of such documents.<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> == Bibliographies ==<br /> <br /> * Greg, W.W., ed., ''A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration'', 4 vols (London: Bibliographical Society, 1939–59). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg_f0w9 Internet Archive]] (Vol. 3) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0003greg Internet Archive]] (Vol. 4) [[https://archive.org/details/bibliographyofen0000greg_o4g0 Internet Archive]]<br /> <br /> == Stationers' Register ==<br /> * Arber, Edwards, ed., ''A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London; 1554–1640'', 5 vols (London, 1875–1894). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[http://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435072530868 HathiTrust]] (Vol. 2) [[http://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435023215767 HathiTrust]] [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015078263228 HathiTrust]] [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951001490149p HathiTrust]]<br /> * Bergel, Giles, and Ian Gadd, eds, ''Stationers' Register Online'', CREATe, University of Glasgow, [[https://stationersregister.online/ stationersregister.online]]<br /> * Eyre, G.E.B., and C.R. Rivington, eds, ''A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers from 1640–1708'', 3 vols (London, 1913–14). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678452 HathiTrust]] [[https://archive.org/details/1913transcriptof01statuoft Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678445 HathiTrust]] (Vol. 3) [[https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015033678437 HathiTrust]]<br /> <br /> == Henslowe's Diary ==<br /> <br /> * Greg, W.W., ed., ''Henslowe's Diary'', 2 vols (London: A.H. Bullen, 1908). Page images: (Vol. 1) [[https://archive.org/details/cu31924026121305 Internet Archive]] (Vol. 2) [[https://archive.org/details/cu31924026121313 Internet Archive]]<br /> * Ioppolo, Grace, ed., ''The Henslowe-Alleyn Digitisation Project''. See esp. [[https://henslowe-alleyn.org.uk/catalogue/mss-7/ page images of Dulwich College Library MSS 7]]<br /> <br /> == Records of Early English Drama (REED) ==<br /> <br /> * [[https://ereed.library.utoronto.ca/ REED Online]] (currently includes materials on Berkshire, Hampshire, Staffordshire, and the Rose Playhouse Prototype)<br /> <br /> == Playlists ==<br /> <br /> * Archer's List (1656). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Archer%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Beeston's List (1639). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Beeston%27s_List Lost Plays Database]<br /> * Brooke's List (1658). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Brooke%27s_list Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Harington's List (c. 1612). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Harington%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Hill's List of Early Plays in Manuscript (c. 1677–1703). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Hill%27s_List_of_Early_Plays_in_Manuscript Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * King's Men repertory list (1641). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/King%27s_Men_repertory_list_(1641) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Marriott's List (1653). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Marriott%27s_List_(1653) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Henry Oxinden's List (c. 1663–65). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Henry_Oxinden%27s_list_(ca._1663-65) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Rogers and Ley's List (1656). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Rogers_and_Ley%27s_List_(1656) Lost Plays Database]]<br /> * Warburton's List (c. 1682–1759). [[https://lostplays.folger.edu/Warburton%27s_List Lost Plays Database]]<br /> <br /> == Biographies ==<br /> <br /> * Phillips, Edward, ''Theatrum Poetarum'' (London, 1675), Wing P2075. Page images: [[https://archive.org/details/theatrumpoetaru01philgoog Internet Archive]] | Transcription: [[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A54754.0001.001 EEBO-TCP Phase I]]<br /> * Winstanley, William, ''The lives of the most famous English Poets, or the Honour of Parnassus'' (London, 1687), Wing W3065. Page images: [[https://archive.org/details/livesofmostfamou00wins_0 Internet Archive]] | Transcription: [[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A66698.0001.001?view=toc EEBO-TCP Phase I]]<br /> <br /> == Extracts ==<br /> <br /> * Cotgrave, John, ''The English Treasury of Wit and Language'' (London, 1655), Wing C6368. Page images: [[https://archive.org/stream/englishtreasuryo00cotg Internet Archive]] | See also [[https://shakespeareauthorship.com/cotgrave/ Cotgrave Online]]<br /> <br /> __NOTOC__<br /> <br /> == Version ==<br /> Latest version edited on 31 August 2021 by Brett Greatley-Hirsch.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Bibliography&diff=1195 2023-01-17T20:56:34Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: /* G */</p> <hr /> <div>== Getting started ==<br /> <br /> Readers interested in authorship attribution may understandably find the sheer quantity of scholarship on the subject intimidating. For an engaging introduction to attribution study – its history, principles, and methods – written for the non-specialist reader, the general editors recommend Harold Love's ''Attributing Authorship: An Introduction'' (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002). <br /> <br /> For an overview of the history of attribution studies of Shakespeare and early modern drama, see Gabriel Egan's chapter, 'A History of Shakespearean Authorship Attribution', in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 27–47. For a primer in Shakespeare authorship attribution, see Hugh Craig, 'Shakespeare and Authorship Attribution Methodologies', in ''The Arden Research Companion to Shakespeare and Textual Studies'', ed. by Lukas Erne (Arden Shakespeare, 2021), pp. 225–43. For discussion of external and internal forms of attribution evidence, and the order and composition of the Shakespeare canon, see Gary Taylor and Rory Loughnane's book-length study, 'The Canon and Chronology of Shakespeare's Works', in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 417–602.<br /> <br /> Martin Wiggins's (in association with Catherine Richardson) ''British Drama: A Catalogue, 1533-1642'' (10 volumes), is an important resource for information about the plays and entertainments of the period. We have adopted the titles used in the ''Catalogue'' for entertainments (masques, tilts, royal entries, and civic pageants) for ease of cross-reference. Another valuable resource for the print and reprint history of early modern drama, including title-page attributions, is [http://deep.sas.upenn.edu ''DEEP: Database of Early English Playbooks''], edited by Alan B. Farmer and Zachary Lesser.<br /> <br /> == Works Cited ==<br /> <br /> This section supplies bibliographical information for scholarship cited in CADRE entries as well as suggested reading.<br /> <br /> === A ===<br /> * Argamon, Shlomo, 'Interpreting Burrows's Delta: Geometric and Probabilistic Foundations', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 23.2 (2008), 131–47.<br /> * Ashley, Leonard R.N., ''Authorship and Evidence: A Study of Attribution and the Renaissance Drama Illustrated by the Case of George Peele (1556–1596)'' (Librairie Droz, 1968).<br /> <br /> === B ===<br /> * Bruster, Douglas, 'Shakespearean Spellings and Handwriting in the Additional Passages Printed in the 1602 ''Spanish Tragedy''', ''Notes &amp; Queries'', 60 (2013), 420–24.<br /> * Burke, Séan, ''The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida'', 3rd edn (Edinburgh UP, 2008).<br /> * Burrows, John, 'All the Way Through: Testing for Authorship in Different Frequency Strata', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 22 (2007), 27–47.<br /> * Burrows, John, 'Delta: A Measure of Stylistic Difference and a Guide to Likely Authorship', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 17 (2002), 267–87.<br /> * Burrows, John, and Hugh Craig, 'Attribution', in ''The Cambridge Handbook of Literary Authorship'', ed. by Ingo Berensmeyer, Gert Buelens, and Marysa Demoor (Cambridge UP, 2019), pp. 325–40.<br /> * Byrne, Muriel St Clare, 'Bibliographical Clues in Collaborate Plays', ''The Library'', 14 (1932), 21–48.<br /> <br /> === C ===<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Authorial Styles and the Frequencies of Very Common Words: Jonson, Shakespeare, and the Additions to ''The Spanish Tragedy''', ''Style'', 26 (1992), 199–220.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Authorship', in ''The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare'', ed. by Arthur F. Kinney (Oxford UP, 2012), pp. 15–30.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Shakespeare's Vocabulary: Myth and Reality', ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 62.1 (2011), 53–74.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Shakespeare and Authorship Attribution Methodologies', in ''The Arden Research Companion to Shakespeare and Textual Studies'', ed. by Lukas Erne (Arden Shakespeare, 2021), pp. 225–43.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, 'Style, Statistics, and New Models of Authorship', ''Early Modern Literary Studies'', 15 (2010), 2.1-41.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, and John Burrows, 'A Collaboration about a Collaboration: The Authorship of ''King Henry VI, Part Three''', in ''Collaborative Research in the Digital Humanities'', ed. by Marilyn Deegan and Willard McCarty (Ashgate, 2012), pp. 27–65.<br /> * Craig, Hugh, and Brett Greatley-Hirsch, ''Style, Computers, and Early Modern Drama: Beyond Authorship'' (Cambridge UP, 2017).<br /> * Craig, Hugh, and Ruth Lunney, 'Who Wrote ''Dido, Queen of Carthage''?', ''Journal of Marlowe Studies'', 1 (2020).<br /> <br /> === E ===<br /> * Eder, Maciej, 'Mind Your Corpus: Systematic Errors in Authorship Attribution', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 28 (2013), 603–14.<br /> * Egan, Gabriel, 'A History of Shakespearean Authorship Attribution', in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 27–47.<br /> * Egan, Gabriel, 'What is Not Collaborative about Early Modern Drama in Performance and Print?', ''Shakespeare Survey'', 67 (2014), 18–28.<br /> * Eisen, Mark, Alejandro Ribeiro, Santiago Segarra, and Gabriel Egan, 'Stylometric Analysis of Early Modern Period English Plays', ''Digital Scholarship in the Humanities'', 33 (2018), 500–28.<br /> * Elliott, Ward E.Y., and Robert J. Valenza, 'Shakespeare's Vocabulary: Did It Dwarf All Others?', in ''Stylistics and Shakespeare's Language: Transdisciplinary Approaches'', ed. by Mireille Ravassat and Jonathan Culpeper (London: Continuum), pp. 34–57.<br /> * Evert, Stefan, Thomas Proisl, Fotis Jannidis, Isabella Reger, Steffen Pielström, Christof Schöch, and others, 'Understanding and Explaining Delta Measures for Authorship Attribution', ''Digital Scholarship in the Humanities'', 32.2 (2017), ii4–16.<br /> <br /> === F ===<br /> * Freebury-Jones, Darren, and Marcus Dahl, 'Searching for Thomas Nashe in ''Dido, Queen of Carthage''', ''Digital Scholarship in the Humanities'', 35 (2020), 296–306.<br /> <br /> === G ===<br /> * Greatley-Hirsch, Brett, 'Computational Studies', in ''The Arden Research Handbook of Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism'', ed. by Evelyn Gajowski (London: Arden Shakespeare, 2020), pp. 205–21.<br /> * Greg, W.W., 'Authorship Attributions in the Early Play-Lists, 1656–1671', ''Edinburgh Bibliographical Society Transactions'', 2 (1946), 305–26.<br /> <br /> === H ===<br /> * Hammond, Antony, and Doreen DelVecchio, 'The Melbourne Manuscript and John Webster: A Reproduction and Transcript', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 41 (1988), 1–32.<br /> * Holdsworth, Roger, 'Stage Directions and Authorship: Shakespeare, Middleton, Heywood', ''Memoria di Shakespeare'', 8 (2012), 57–63.<br /> * Hope, Jonathan, ''The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays: A Socio-Linguistic Study'' (Cambridge UP, 1994).<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (I)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 8 (1956), 129–46.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (II)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 9 (1957), 143–62.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (III)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 11 (1958), 85–106.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (IV)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 12 (1959), 91–116.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (V)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 13 (1960), 77–108.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (VI)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 14 (1961), 45–67.<br /> * Hoy, Cyrus, 'The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (VII)', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 15 (1962), 71–90.<br /> <br /> === J ===<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'Collaboration', in ''The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare'', ed. by Arthur F Kinney (Oxford UP, 2012), pp. 31–52.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'Cyril Tourneur and ''The Honest Man's Fortune''', ''Medieval &amp; Renaissance Drama in England'', 32 (2019), 203–18.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'The Date and Authorship of ''Thomas of Woodstock'': Evidence and Its Interpretation', ''Research Opportunities in Medieval and Renaissance Drama'', 46 (2007), 67–100.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., ''Determining the Shakespeare Canon: &quot;Arden of Faversham&quot; and &quot;A Lover's Complaint&quot;'' (Oxford UP, 2014).<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'John Webster, James Shirley, and the Melbourne Manuscript', ''Medieval &amp; Renaissance Drama in England'', 19 (2006), 21–44.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'John Webster and Thomas Heywood in ''Appius and Virginia'': A Bibliographical Approach to the Problem of Authorship', ''Studies in Bibliography'', 38 (1985), 217–35.<br /> * Jackson, MacDonald P., 'Late Webster and His Collaborators: How Many Playwrights Wrote ''A Cure for a Cuckold''?', ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'', 95 (2001), 295–313.<br /> * Juola, Patrick, 'Authorship Attribution', ''Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval'', 1.3 (2006), 233–334.<br /> <br /> === K ===<br /> * Kahan, Jeffrey, '&quot;I tell you what mine author says&quot;: A Brief History of Stylometrics', ''ELH'', 82.3 (2015), 815–44.<br /> * Knapp, Jeffrey, 'What Is a Co-Author?', ''Representations'', 89 (2005), 1–29.<br /> <br /> === L ===<br /> * Lake, David J., ''The Canon of Thomas Middleton's Plays: Internal Evidence for the Major Problems of Authorship'' (Cambridge UP, 1975).<br /> * Lake, David J., 'Three Seventeenth-Century Revisions: ''Thomas of Woodstock'', ''The Jew of Malta'', and ''Faustus B''', ''Notes &amp; Queries'', 30 (1983), 133–43.<br /> * Loughnane, Rory, 'Re-editing Non-Shakespeare for the Modern Reader: The Murder of Mutius in ''Titus Andronicus''', ''The Review of English Studies'', 68.284 (2017), 268–95.<br /> * Loughnane, Rory, 'Thomas Middleton in ''All’s Well that Ends Well''? Parts One and Two', in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 278–302, 307–20. <br /> * Loughnane, Rory, 'Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Traces of Authorship' in ''The Birth and Death of the Author: A Multi-Authored History of Authorship'', ed. by Andrew J. Power (Routledge, 2020), pp. 54–78. <br /> * Love, Harold, ''Attributing Authorship: An Introduction'' (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002).<br /> * Luyckx, Kim, and Walter Daelemans, 'The Effect of Author Set Size and Data Size in Authorship Attribution', ''Literary and Linguistic Computing'', 26 (2011), 35–55.<br /> <br /> === M ===<br /> * Merriam, Thomas, 'Marlowe and Nash in ''Dido Queen of Carthage''', ''Notes &amp; Queries'', 47 (2000), 425–28.<br /> <br /> === O ===<br /> * Oliphant, E.H.C., ''The Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher: An Attempt to Determine Their Respective Shares and the Shares of Others'' (Yale UP, 1927).<br /> * Oliphant, E.H.C., 'Problems of Authorship in Elizabethan Dramatic Literature', ''Modern Philology'', 8 (1911), 411–59.<br /> <br /> === R ===<br /> * Rowland, Richard, '&quot;Speaking Some Words, but of No Importance&quot;? Stage Directions, Thomas Heywood, and ''Edward IV''', ''Medieval &amp; Renaissance Drama in England'', 18 (2005), 104–22.<br /> <br /> === S ===<br /> * Schoenbaum, S., ''Internal Evidence and Elizabethan Dramatic Authorship: An Essay in Literary History and Method'' (Northwestern UP, 1966).<br /> * Segarra, Santiago, Mark Eisen, Gabriel Egan, and Alejandro Ribeiro, 'Attributing the Authorship of the ''Henry VI'' Plays by Word Adjacency', ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 67 (2016), 232–56.<br /> * Smith, M.W.A., 'The Authorship of &quot;A Lover’s Complaint&quot;: An Application of Statistical Stylometry to Poetry', ''Computers and the Humanities'', 18 (1984), 23–37.<br /> * Smith, M.W.A., 'The Authorship of Acts I and II of ''Pericles'': A New Approach Using First Words of Speeches', ''Computers and the Humanities'', 22 (1988), 23–41.<br /> * Smith, M.W.A., 'An Investigation of Morton’s Method to Distinguish Elizabethan Playwrights', ''Computers and the Humanities'', 19 (1985), 3–21.<br /> <br /> === T ===<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Finding &quot;Anonymous&quot; in the Digital Archives: The Problem of ''Arden of Faversham''', ''Digital Scholarship in the Humanities'', 34 (2019), 855–73.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Empirical Middleton: ''Macbeth'', Adaptation, and Microauthorship', ''Shakespeare Quarterly'', 65 (2014), 239–72.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Middleton and Rowley — and Heywood: ''The Old Law'' and New Attribution Technologies', ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'', 96 (2002), 165–217.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Shakespeare, ''Arden of Faversham'', and Four Forgotten Playwrights', ''The Review of English Studies'', 71 (2020), 867–95.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, 'Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and ''The Bloody Banquet''', ''Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America'', 94 (2000), 197–233.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, and John V. Nance, 'Imitation or Collaboration? Marlowe and the Early Shakespeare Canon', ''Shakespeare Survey'', 68 (2015), 32–47.<br /> * Taylor, Gary, John V. Nance, and Keegan Cooper, 'Shakespeare and Who? Aeschylus, ''Edward III'' and Thomas Kyd', ''Shakespeare Survey'', 70 (2017), 146–53.<br /> * Taylor, Gary and Rory Loughnane, 'The Canon and Chronology of Shakespeare's Works' in ''The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion'', ed. by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford UP, 2017), pp. 417-602.<br /> <br /> === V ===<br /> * Vickers, Brian, ''Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays'' (Oxford UP, 2002)<br /> <br /> === W ===<br /> * Wiggins, Martin, 'When Did Marlowe Write ''Dido, Queen of Carthage''?', ''The Review of English Studies'', 59 (2007), 521–41.<br /> <br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Green,_William_David&diff=1194 2022-09-16T10:59:53Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>[https://twitter.com/greenwill92 '''William David Green'''] recently concluded his doctoral studies at the Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham. His AHRC-funded thesis, titled ''Thomas Middleton and the Adaptation of Shakespeare, 1616-1623'', considered the historical significance of the stylistic identification of Thomas Middleton as the reviser of several of Shakespeare’s plays after the original author’s death in 1616 and prior to their publication in the First Folio in 1623. He is currently working on writing his first monograph, titled ''Authorship and Apocalypse: Thomas Middleton, the King’s Men, and the Drama of the Thirty Years’ War'', which will focus on Middleton’s work as a solo author, collaborator, and adapter of old play-texts during his extensive association with the King’s Men between 1615 and 1624. He is also lead editor (with Anna L. Hegland and Sam Jermy) on an edited collection designed to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Middleton’s ''A Game at Chess'', the greatest box office success in Renaissance England, which we have titled ''The Theatrical Legacy of Thomas Middleton, 1624-2024''. He is also working as part of the ''Complete Works of Margaret Cavendish'' team, led by Liza Blake, Shawn Moore, and Jacob Tootalian; for this project, he is contracted to develop a critical edition of Cavendish’s 1662 play ''The Unnatural Tragedy''.<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Green,_William_David&diff=1193 2022-09-16T10:27:21Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Created page with &quot;William David Green recently concluded his doctoral studies at the Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham. His AHRC-funded thesis, titled ''Thomas Middleton and the Adaptation of Shakespeare, 1616-1623'', considered the historical significance of the stylistic identification of Thomas Middleton as the reviser of several of Shakespeare’s plays after the original author’s death in 1616 and prior to their publication in the First Folio in 1623. He is currently...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>William David Green recently concluded his doctoral studies at the Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham. His AHRC-funded thesis, titled ''Thomas Middleton and the Adaptation of Shakespeare, 1616-1623'', considered the historical significance of the stylistic identification of Thomas Middleton as the reviser of several of Shakespeare’s plays after the original author’s death in 1616 and prior to their publication in the First Folio in 1623. He is currently working on writing his first monograph, titled ''Authorship and Apocalypse: Thomas Middleton, the King’s Men, and the Drama of the Thirty Years’ War'', which will focus on Middleton’s work as a solo author, collaborator, and adapter of old play-texts during his extensive association with the King’s Men between 1615 and 1624. He is also lead editor (with Anna L. Hegland and Sam Jermy) on an edited collection designed to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Middleton’s ''A Game at Chess'', the greatest box office success in Renaissance England, which we have titled ''The Theatrical Legacy of Thomas Middleton, 1624-2024''. He is also working as part of the ''Complete Works of Margaret Cavendish'' team, led by Liza Blake, Shawn Moore, and Jacob Tootalian; for this project, he is contracted to develop a critical edition of Cavendish’s 1662 play ''The Unnatural Tragedy''.<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Nicol,_David&diff=1191 2022-01-12T15:52:04Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Created page with &quot;[https://www.dal.ca/faculty/arts/school-of-performing-arts/faculty-staff/our-faculty/david-nicol.html '''David Nicol'''] is an Associate Professor at the Fountain School of Pe...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[https://www.dal.ca/faculty/arts/school-of-performing-arts/faculty-staff/our-faculty/david-nicol.html '''David Nicol'''] is an Associate Professor at the Fountain School of Performing Arts, Dalhousie University. He is the author of ''Middleton and Rowley: Forms of Collaboration in the Jacobean Playhouse'' (2012), and has published articles on the plays of William Rowley in ''Cahiers Élisabéthains'', ''Comparative Drama'', ''Early Theatre'', ''Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England'', ''Notes and Queries'', ''Shakespeare Bulletin'' and ''Studies in English Literature''.<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Fell,_Christopher&diff=1183 2021-12-10T12:36:14Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>[https://www.english.ox.ac.uk/people/chris-hertford '''Christopher Fell'''] is a DPhil candidate at Hertford College, Oxford. His project, supervised by Bart van Es, seeks to provide a history of editorial thinking in the twentieth- and twenty-first century, using the frame of the three completed Arden Shakespeare series. He is also extending further afield to consider wider developments, including those linked with the ''Oxford Complete Works'' (1986-7), and the recent ''New Oxford Shakespeare'' (2016).<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Fell,_Christopher&diff=1182 2021-12-10T12:35:38Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>[https://www.english.ox.ac.uk/people/chris-hertford '''Christopher Fell'''] is a DPhil candidate at Hertford College, Oxford. His project, supervised by Bart van Es, seeks to provide a history of editorial thinking in the twentieth- and twenty-first century, using the frame of the three completed Arden Shakespeare series. He is also extending further afield to consider wider developments, including those linked with the ''Oxford Complete Works'' (1986-7), and the recent ''New Oxford Shakespeare'' (2016).</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Fell,_Christopher&diff=1181 2021-12-10T12:34:07Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Created page with &quot;Christopher Fell https://www.english.ox.ac.uk/people/chris-hertford is a DPhil candidate at Hertford College, Oxford. His project, supervised by Bart van Es, seeks to prov...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[[Christopher Fell https://www.english.ox.ac.uk/people/chris-hertford]] is a DPhil candidate at Hertford College, Oxford. His project, supervised by Bart van Es, seeks to provide a history of editorial thinking in the twentieth- and twenty-first century, using the frame of the three completed Arden Shakespeare series. He is also extending further afield to consider wider developments, including those linked with the ''Oxford Complete Works'' (1986-7), and the recent ''New Oxford Shakespeare'' (2016).</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Evans,_Mel&diff=962 2021-09-20T19:42:47Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Created page with &quot;'''Mel Evans''' is Lecturer in English Language at the University of Leeds. category:contributors&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''Mel Evans''' is Lecturer in English Language at the University of Leeds.<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=About_Us&diff=961 2021-09-20T19:42:06Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== General Editors ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Loughnane, Rory|Rory Loughnane]]''', University of Kent, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett|Brett Greatley-Hirsch]]''', University of Leeds, UK<br /> <br /> == Advisory Board ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Britland, Karen|Karen Britland]]''', University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Craig, Hugh|Hugh Craig]]''', University of Newcastle, AU<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Evans, Mel|Mel Evans]]''', University of Leeds, UK <br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Giles-Watson, Maura|Maura Giles-Watson]]''', University of San Diego, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hill, Tracey|Tracey Hill]]''', Bath Spa University, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hope, Jonathan|Jonathan Hope]]''', Arizona State University, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Jackson, MacDonald P.|MacDonald P. Jackson]]''', University of Auckland, NZ<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Lin, Erika T.|Erika T. Lin]]''', City University of New York, USA<br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:McInnis, David|David McInnis]]''', University of Melbourne, AU<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Sharpe, Will|Will Sharpe]]''', University of Birmingham, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Walker, Greg|Greg Walker]]''', University of Edinburgh, UK<br /> <br /> == Support ==<br /> <br /> Initial funding for the CADRE database was generously provided by the Division of Arts and Humanities and the [https://www.kent.ac.uk/medieval-early-modern-studies Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies] at the University of Kent. <br /> <br /> == Design ==<br /> <br /> The MediaWiki skin is based on [https://tinymighty.com Andru Vallance's] design for the [https://lostplays.folger.edu Lost Plays Database]. The logo was created by [https://notwithoutmustard.net/ Brett Greatley-Hirsch], and the banner image is taken from an engraving after James Faed, &quot;Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern&quot; (1850), courtesy of the [https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:63562 Yale Center for British Art] (B2010.27.1). The image is in the public domain.<br /> <br /> <br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=About_Us&diff=860 2021-09-13T12:32:28Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== General Editors ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Loughnane, Rory|Rory Loughnane]]''', University of Kent, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett|Brett Greatley-Hirsch]]''', University of Leeds, UK<br /> <br /> == Advisory Board ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Britland, Karen|Karen Britland]]''', University of Wisconsin–Madison<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Craig, Hugh|Hugh Craig]]''', University of Newcastle Australia<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Evans, Mel|Mel Evans]]''', University of Leeds, UK <br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:Giles-Watson, Maura|Maura Giles-Watson]]''', University of San Diego, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hill, Tracey|Tracey Hill]]''', Bath Spa University, UK<br /> &lt;!--<br /> '''[[:Category:Hope, Jonathan|Jonathan Hope]]''', Arizona State University, USA<br /> --&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Jackson, MacDonald P.|MacDonald P. Jackson]]''', University of Auckland, NZ<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Lin, Erika T.|Erika T. Lin]]''', City University of New York, USA<br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:McInnis, David|David McInnis]]''', University of Melbourne, AU<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Sharpe, Will|Will Sharpe]]''', University of Birmingham, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Walker, Greg|Greg Walker]]''', University of Edinburgh, UK<br /> <br /> == Support ==<br /> <br /> Initial funding for the CADRE database was generously provided by the Division of Arts and Humanities and the [https://www.kent.ac.uk/medieval-early-modern-studies Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies] at the University of Kent. <br /> <br /> == Design ==<br /> <br /> The MediaWiki skin is based on [https://tinymighty.com Andru Vallance's] design for the [https://lostplays.folger.edu Lost Plays Database]. The logo was created by [https://notwithoutmustard.net/ Brett Greatley-Hirsch], and the banner image is taken from an engraving after James Faed, &quot;Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern&quot; (1850), courtesy of the [https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:63562 Yale Center for British Art] (B2010.27.1). The image is in the public domain.<br /> <br /> <br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=About_Us&diff=859 2021-09-13T12:32:21Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== General Editors ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Loughnane, Rory|Rory Loughnane]]''', University of Kent, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett|Brett Greatley-Hirsch]]''', University of Leeds, UK<br /> <br /> == Advisory Board ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Britland, Karen|Karen Britland]]''', University of Wisconsin–Madison<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Craig, Hugh|Hugh Craig]]''', University of Newcastle Australia<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Evans, Mel|Mel Evans]]''', University of Leeds, UK <br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:Giles-Watson, Maura|Maura Giles-Watson]]''', University of San Diego, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hill, Tracey|Tracey Hill]]''', Bath Spa University, UK<br /> &lt;!--<br /> '''[[:Category:Hope, Jonathan|Jonathan Hope]]''', Arizona State University, USA<br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:Jackson, MacDonald P.|MacDonald P. Jackson]]''', University of Auckland, NZ<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Lin, Erika T.|Erika T. Lin]]''', City University of New York, USA<br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:McInnis, David|David McInnis]]''', University of Melbourne, AU<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Sharpe, Will|Will Sharpe]]''', University of Birmingham, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Walker, Greg|Greg Walker]]''', University of Edinburgh, UK<br /> <br /> == Support ==<br /> <br /> Initial funding for the CADRE database was generously provided by the Division of Arts and Humanities and the [https://www.kent.ac.uk/medieval-early-modern-studies Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies] at the University of Kent. <br /> <br /> == Design ==<br /> <br /> The MediaWiki skin is based on [https://tinymighty.com Andru Vallance's] design for the [https://lostplays.folger.edu Lost Plays Database]. The logo was created by [https://notwithoutmustard.net/ Brett Greatley-Hirsch], and the banner image is taken from an engraving after James Faed, &quot;Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern&quot; (1850), courtesy of the [https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:63562 Yale Center for British Art] (B2010.27.1). The image is in the public domain.<br /> <br /> <br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Hill,_Tracey&diff=858 2021-09-13T12:31:59Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Created page with &quot;[https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/our-people/tracey-hill/ '''Tracey Hill'''] is Professor of Early Modern Literature and Culture at Bath Spa University. category:contributors&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/our-people/tracey-hill/ '''Tracey Hill'''] is Professor of Early Modern Literature and Culture at Bath Spa University.<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=About_Us&diff=857 2021-09-13T12:31:30Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== General Editors ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Loughnane, Rory|Rory Loughnane]]''', University of Kent, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett|Brett Greatley-Hirsch]]''', University of Leeds, UK<br /> <br /> == Advisory Board ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Britland, Karen|Karen Britland]]''', University of Wisconsin–Madison<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Craig, Hugh|Hugh Craig]]''', University of Newcastle Australia<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Evans, Mel|Mel Evans]]''', University of Leeds, UK <br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:Giles-Watson, Maura|Maura Giles-Watson]]''', University of San Diego, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hill, Tracey|Tracey Hill]]''', Bath Spa University, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hope, Jonathan|Jonathan Hope]]''', Arizona State University, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Jackson, MacDonald P.|MacDonald P. Jackson]]''', University of Auckland, NZ<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Lin, Erika T.|Erika T. Lin]]''', City University of New York, USA<br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:McInnis, David|David McInnis]]''', University of Melbourne, AU<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Sharpe, Will|Will Sharpe]]''', University of Birmingham, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Walker, Greg|Greg Walker]]''', University of Edinburgh, UK<br /> <br /> == Support ==<br /> <br /> Initial funding for the CADRE database was generously provided by the Division of Arts and Humanities and the [https://www.kent.ac.uk/medieval-early-modern-studies Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies] at the University of Kent. <br /> <br /> == Design ==<br /> <br /> The MediaWiki skin is based on [https://tinymighty.com Andru Vallance's] design for the [https://lostplays.folger.edu Lost Plays Database]. The logo was created by [https://notwithoutmustard.net/ Brett Greatley-Hirsch], and the banner image is taken from an engraving after James Faed, &quot;Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern&quot; (1850), courtesy of the [https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:63562 Yale Center for British Art] (B2010.27.1). The image is in the public domain.<br /> <br /> <br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=About_Us&diff=856 2021-09-13T12:30:55Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== General Editors ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Loughnane, Rory|Rory Loughnane]]''', University of Kent, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett|Brett Greatley-Hirsch]]''', University of Leeds, UK<br /> <br /> == Advisory Board ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Britland, Karen|Karen Britland]]''', University of Wisconsin–Madison<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Craig, Hugh|Hugh Craig]]''', University of Newcastle Australia<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Evans, Mel|Mel Evans]]''', University of Leeds, UK <br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:Giles-Watson, Maura|Maura Giles-Watson]]''', University of San Diego, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hill, Tracy|Tracy Hill]]''', Bath Spa University, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hope, Jonathan|Jonathan Hope]]''', Arizona State University, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Jackson, MacDonald P.|MacDonald P. Jackson]]''', University of Auckland, NZ<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Lin, Erika T.|Erika T. Lin]]''', City University of New York, USA<br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:McInnis, David|David McInnis]]''', University of Melbourne, AU<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Sharpe, Will|Will Sharpe]]''', University of Birmingham, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Walker, Greg|Greg Walker]]''', University of Edinburgh, UK<br /> <br /> == Support ==<br /> <br /> Initial funding for the CADRE database was generously provided by the Division of Arts and Humanities and the [https://www.kent.ac.uk/medieval-early-modern-studies Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies] at the University of Kent. <br /> <br /> == Design ==<br /> <br /> The MediaWiki skin is based on [https://tinymighty.com Andru Vallance's] design for the [https://lostplays.folger.edu Lost Plays Database]. The logo was created by [https://notwithoutmustard.net/ Brett Greatley-Hirsch], and the banner image is taken from an engraving after James Faed, &quot;Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern&quot; (1850), courtesy of the [https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:63562 Yale Center for British Art] (B2010.27.1). The image is in the public domain.<br /> <br /> <br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=About_Us&diff=855 2021-09-13T12:30:44Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== General Editors ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Loughnane, Rory|Rory Loughnane]]''', University of Kent, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett|Brett Greatley-Hirsch]]''', University of Leeds, UK<br /> <br /> == Advisory Board ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Britland, Karen|Karen Britland]]''', University of Wisconsin–Madison<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Craig, Hugh|Hugh Craig]]''', University of Newcastle Australia<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Evans, Mel|Mel Evans]]''', University of Leeds, UK <br /> --&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Giles-Watson, Maura|Maura Giles-Watson]]''', University of San Diego, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hill, Tracy|Tracy Hill]]''', Bath Spa University, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hope, Jonathan|Jonathan Hope]]''', Arizona State University, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Jackson, MacDonald P.|MacDonald P. Jackson]]''', University of Auckland, NZ<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Lin, Erika T.|Erika T. Lin]]''', City University of New York, USA<br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:McInnis, David|David McInnis]]''', University of Melbourne, AU<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Sharpe, Will|Will Sharpe]]''', University of Birmingham, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Walker, Greg|Greg Walker]]''', University of Edinburgh, UK<br /> <br /> == Support ==<br /> <br /> Initial funding for the CADRE database was generously provided by the Division of Arts and Humanities and the [https://www.kent.ac.uk/medieval-early-modern-studies Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies] at the University of Kent. <br /> <br /> == Design ==<br /> <br /> The MediaWiki skin is based on [https://tinymighty.com Andru Vallance's] design for the [https://lostplays.folger.edu Lost Plays Database]. The logo was created by [https://notwithoutmustard.net/ Brett Greatley-Hirsch], and the banner image is taken from an engraving after James Faed, &quot;Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern&quot; (1850), courtesy of the [https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:63562 Yale Center for British Art] (B2010.27.1). The image is in the public domain.<br /> <br /> <br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=About_Us&diff=854 2021-09-13T12:30:32Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== General Editors ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Loughnane, Rory|Rory Loughnane]]''', University of Kent, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett|Brett Greatley-Hirsch]]''', University of Leeds, UK<br /> <br /> == Advisory Board ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Britland, Karen|Karen Britland]]''', University of Wisconsin–Madison<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Craig, Hugh|Hugh Craig]]''', University of Newcastle Australia<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Evans, Mel|Mel Evans]]''', University of Leeds, UK <br /> --&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Giles-Watson, Maura|Maura Giles-Watson]]''', University of San Diego, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hill, Tracy|Tracy Hill]]''', Bath Spa University, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hope, Jonathan|Jonathan Hope]]''', Arizona State University, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Jackson, MacDonald P.|MacDonald P. Jackson]]''', University of Auckland, NZ<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> '''[[:Category:Lin, Erika T.|Erika T. Lin]]''', City University of New York, USA<br /> --&gt;<br /> '''[[:Category:McInnis, David|David McInnis]]''', University of Melbourne, AU<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Sharpe, Will|Will Sharpe]]''', University of Birmingham, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Walker, Greg|Greg Walker]]''', University of Edinburgh, UK<br /> <br /> == Support ==<br /> <br /> Initial funding for the CADRE database was generously provided by the Division of Arts and Humanities and the [https://www.kent.ac.uk/medieval-early-modern-studies Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies] at the University of Kent. <br /> <br /> == Design ==<br /> <br /> The MediaWiki skin is based on [https://tinymighty.com Andru Vallance's] design for the [https://lostplays.folger.edu Lost Plays Database]. The logo was created by [https://notwithoutmustard.net/ Brett Greatley-Hirsch], and the banner image is taken from an engraving after James Faed, &quot;Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern&quot; (1850), courtesy of the [https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:63562 Yale Center for British Art] (B2010.27.1). The image is in the public domain.<br /> <br /> <br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Jackson,_MacDonald_P.&diff=789 2021-09-09T19:07:48Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: BGreatley-Hirsch moved page Category:MacDonald P. Jackson to Category:Jackson, MacDonald P. without leaving a redirect</p> <hr /> <div>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald_P._Jackson '''MacDonald P. Jackson'''] FNZAH FRSNZ is Professor Emeritus of English at the University of Auckland. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Cure_for_a_Cuckold,_A,_or_A_Wedding&diff=788 2021-09-09T19:05:40Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: BGreatley-Hirsch moved page Cure for a Cuckold, A to Cure for a Cuckold, A, or A Wedding without leaving a redirect</p> <hr /> <div>{{Entry}}<br /> <br /> [[category:Webster, John]]<br /> [[category:Rowley, William]]<br /> [[category:1624]]<br /> [[category:Heywood, Thomas]]<br /> [[category:Prince Charles's Men]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Play_Titles&diff=787 2021-09-09T19:04:46Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;&gt;'''Browse other play titles:'''<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''[[Play Titles A, B|A, B]]''' | '''[[Play Titles C|C]]''' | '''[[Play Titles D, E|D, E]]''' | '''[[Play Titles F, G|F, G]]''' | '''[[Play Titles H, I, J, K|H, I, J, K]]''' | '''[[Play Titles L, M|L, M]]''' | '''[[Play Titles N, O, P|N, O, P]]''' | '''[[Play Titles Q, R, S|Q, R, S]]''' | '''[[Play Titles T, U, V|T, U, V]]''' | '''[[Play Titles W, X, Y, Z|W, X, Y, Z]]'''&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;br&gt;This list is sortable: click the icon next to &quot;Title&quot;, &quot;Year&quot;, &quot;Dramatist&quot; or &quot;Auspices&quot; to sort the list alphabetically/chronologically. Blue links = entry has been created for this title. <br /> &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable collapsible&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! scope=&quot;col&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; |Title<br /> ! scope=&quot;col&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; |Year<br /> ! scope=&quot;col&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; |Dramatist<br /> ! scope=&quot;col&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; |Auspices<br /> |-<br /> | [[A New Wonder, A Woman Never Vexed]]||[[:category:1624|1624]]||[[:category:Rowley, William|William Rowley]], [[:category:Heywood, Thomas|Thomas Heywood]] (?)||Unknown<br /> |-<br /> | [[Anything for a Quiet Life]]||[[:category:1621|1621]]||[[:category:Middleton, Thomas|Thomas Middleton]], [[:category:Webster, John|John Webster]]||[[:category:King's Men|King's Men]] <br /> |-<br /> | [[Appius and Virginia]]||[[:category:1626|1626]]||[[:category:Heywood, Thomas|Thomas Heywood]], [[:category:Webster, John|John Webster]]||[[:category:Queen Henrietta's Men|Queen Henrietta Maria's Men]]<br /> |-<br /> | [[Beggars' Bush]]||[[:category:1616|1616]]||[[:category:Fletcher,_John|John Fletcher]], [[:category:Massinger,_Philip|Philip Massinger]]||[[:category:King's Men|King's Men]]<br /> |- <br /> | [[Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green, The]]||[[:category:1600|1600]]||[[:category:Chettle,_Henry|Henry Chettle]], [[:category:Day,_John|John Day]]||[[:category:Admiral's Men|Admiral's Men]]<br /> |- <br /> | [[Bloody Banquet, The]]||[[:category:1610|1610]]||[[:category:Dekker,_Thomas|Thomas Dekker]], [[:category:Middleton,_Thomas|Thomas Middleton]]||Unknown<br /> |- <br /> |}<br /> &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;&gt;'''Browse other play titles:'''<br /> &lt;br&gt;'''[[Play Titles A, B|A, B]]''' | '''[[Play Titles C|C]]''' | '''[[Play Titles D, E|D, E]]''' | '''[[Play Titles F, G|F, G]]''' | '''[[Play Titles H, I, J, K|H, I, J, K]]''' | '''[[Play Titles L, M|L, M]]''' | '''[[Play Titles N, O, P|N, O, P]]''' | '''[[Play Titles Q, R, S|Q, R, S]]''' | '''[[Play Titles T, U, V|T, U, V]]''' | '''[[Play Titles W, X, Y, Z|W, X, Y, Z]]'''&lt;/div&gt;</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Walker,_Greg&diff=767 2021-09-09T18:28:26Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>[https://www.ed.ac.uk/profile/greg-walker '''Greg Walker'''] FRHS FEA FSA FRSE is Regius Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature at the University of Edinburgh.<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Walker,_Greg&diff=766 2021-09-09T18:28:13Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Created page with &quot;[https://www.ed.ac.uk/profile/greg-walker '''Greg Walker'''] FRHS FEA FSA FRSE is Regius Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature at the University of Edinburgh.&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[https://www.ed.ac.uk/profile/greg-walker '''Greg Walker'''] FRHS FEA FSA FRSE is Regius Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature at the University of Edinburgh.</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Sharpe,_Will&diff=689 2021-09-08T10:10:34Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Created page with &quot;[https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/english/sharpe-will.aspx '''Will Sharpe'''] is a Teaching Fellow in Shakespeare at the University of Birmingham. category:contr...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/english/sharpe-will.aspx '''Will Sharpe'''] is a Teaching Fellow in Shakespeare at the University of Birmingham.<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=About_Us&diff=688 2021-09-08T10:09:39Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>== General Editors ==<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Loughnane, Rory|Rory Loughnane]]''', University of Kent, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Greatley-Hirsch, Brett|Brett Greatley-Hirsch]]''', University of Leeds, UK<br /> <br /> == Advisory Board ==<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- <br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Britland, Karen|Karen Britland]]''', University of Wisconsin–Madison<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Craig, Hugh|Hugh Craig]]''', University of Newcastle Australia<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Evans, Mel|Mel Evans]]''', University of Leeds, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Giles-Watson, Maura|Maura Giles-Watson]]''', University of San Diego, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hill, Tracy|Tracy Hill]]''', Bath Spa University, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Hope, Jonathan|Jonathan Hope]]''', Arizona State University, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Jackson, MacDonald P.|MacDonald P. Jackson]]''', University of Auckland, NZ<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Lin, Erika T.|Erika T. Lin]]''', City University of New York, USA<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:McInnis, David|David McInnis]]''', University of Melbourne, AU<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Sharpe, Will|Will Sharpe]]''', University of Birmingham, UK<br /> <br /> '''[[:Category:Walker, Greg|Greg Walker]]''', University of Edinburgh, UK<br /> <br /> --&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Name''', Affiliation<br /> <br /> '''Name''', Affiliation<br /> <br /> '''Name''', Affiliation<br /> <br /> '''Name''', Affiliation<br /> <br /> '''Name''', Affiliation<br /> <br /> '''Name''', Affiliation<br /> <br /> == Support ==<br /> <br /> Initial funding for the CADRE database was generously provided by the Division of Arts and Humanities and the [https://www.kent.ac.uk/medieval-early-modern-studies Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies] at the University of Kent. <br /> <br /> == Design ==<br /> <br /> The MediaWiki skin is based on [https://tinymighty.com Andru Vallance's] design for the [https://lostplays.folger.edu Lost Plays Database]. The logo was created by [https://notwithoutmustard.net/ Brett Greatley-Hirsch], and the banner image is taken from an engraving after James Faed, &quot;Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern&quot; (1850), courtesy of the [https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:63562 Yale Center for British Art] (B2010.27.1). The image is in the public domain.<br /> <br /> <br /> __NOTOC__</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Hope,_Jonathan&diff=687 2021-09-08T10:09:16Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: Created page with &quot;[https://english.asu.edu/content/jonathan-hope '''Jonathan Hope'''] is Professor of English Literature at Arizona State University. category:contributors&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[https://english.asu.edu/content/jonathan-hope '''Jonathan Hope'''] is Professor of English Literature at Arizona State University.<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch https://cadredb.net/index.php?title=Category:Giles-Watson,_Maura&diff=686 2021-09-08T10:07:31Z

<p>BGreatley-Hirsch: </p> <hr /> <div>[https://www.sandiego.edu/directory/biography.php?profile_id=573 '''Maura Giles-Watson'''] is Associate Professor of English at the University of San Diego.<br /> <br /> [[category:contributors]]</div>

BGreatley-Hirsch