lind-peinture
» » Dating Shakespeare's plays : a critical review of the evidence

eBook Dating Shakespeare's plays : a critical review of the evidence ePub

by Kevin Gilvary

eBook Dating Shakespeare's plays : a critical review of the evidence ePub
Author: Kevin Gilvary
Language: English
ISBN: 1898594864
ISBN13: 978-1898594864
Publisher: Parapress (November 1, 2010)
Subcategory: No category
Rating: 4.2
Votes: 414
Formats: doc mobi lit docx
ePub file: 1845 kb
Fb2 file: 1318 kb

Dating Shakespeare's Plays.

Dating Shakespeare's Plays.

Dating Shakespeare's Plays book. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Dating Shakespeare’s Plays considers not only the evidence for dating every play but also every argument used in support of a preferred date.

He has taught in Canada, South America, and Hampshire. Dating Shakespeare’s Plays considers not only the evidence for dating every play but also every argument used in support of a preferred date. Each play is considered in its own chapter in relation to

Select Format: Paperback. ISBN13:9781898594864. Release Date:November 2010.

For more details see datingshakespeare. October 21 2018 Booking Opens for our 2018 Conference on 17th September This year's conference title is 'The Merciful Construction of Good Women: Gender, Shakespeare, and Authorship.

2 Although Geoffrey Bullough dismissed Thomas as a source for The Tempest as ‘not necessary,’ Philip Johnson and Kevin Gilvary more plausibly accept Thomas, as well as Guicciardini as likely sources, in their ‘The Tempest’, chapter 1 in Kevin Gilvary (e., Dating Shakespeare’s.

Results from Google Books. 17th Earl of Oxford (1) authorship controversy (1) Elizabethan era (1) Shakespeare (1) Shakespeare - Edward de Vere - 17th Earl of Oxford (1) shakespeare authorship (1) Studies (1). refresh. Member recommendations.

It is one of Shakespeare's later plays and, in my opinion, one of his best. Although originally based on a short story, Shakespeare did really adapt it and make it his own. Othello is a general in the service of Venice. Iago is Othello's friend, but then Othello promotes Michael Cassio to the position of personal lieutenant and Iago is incredibly jealous. Iago begins an evil and malicious campaign against the hero. Othello elopes with Desdemona but Iago starts to plot against them. Children and teenagers.

Such Fruits Out of Italy: The Italian Renaissance in Shakespeare's Plays and Poems, Noemi Magri, P.

Shakespeare's Education: Schools, Lawsuits, Theater, and the Tudor Miracle, Robin Fox, P. Laugwitz Verlag, 2012). Such Fruits Out of Italy: The Italian Renaissance in Shakespeare's Plays and Poems, Noemi Magri, P.

Rko
This book is an exceptional resource. It gives both traditional dating and Oxfordian alternatives without prejudice. The lists of established and possible sources that influenced the writing of the plays are generally quite thorough. This is the only available resource of its kind and breadth but works hard for its readers nonetheless.
LONUDOG
Dating Shakespeare's Plays. Kevin Gilvary, editor. 507 pages. 2010, Parapress.

This book carefully reviews the evidence, both orthodox and revolutionary, for establishing the dates for when each of William Shakespeare's plays were written.

Surprisingly, the editor concludes that the plays themselves do not tell us when they were composed. The scholarly consensus on the dates and order of their composition "depends on conjecture about Shakespeare's artistic development, which cannot be substantiated by the documentary record. ... We do not know when the plays of Shakespeare were written or in what order," writes Kevin Gilvary, who edited the book and who wrote half the essays in it.

This book will not be comforting to those who want certainty, but it may be of interest to those who want to know why certitude on this question cannot be achieved.

The book is a project of the De Vere Society of England, an organization dedicated to promoting the idea that the works of William Shakespeare were written by Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (1550-1604). In addition to Gilvary, fifteen scholars, most of them affiliated with the Oxfordian movement, wrote or collaborated on one or more of the book's forty essays.

Each essay focuses on one of the thirty-six canonical plays of William Shakespeare. In addition, four other plays, which for various reasons have been generally or occasionally considered to be non-canonical, are here considered to be by Shakespeare and are also assessed for clues as to when they were written. The four "non-canonical plays" are Pericles, Two Noble Kinsmen, Edward III and The Famous Victories of King Henry V.

The book has both assets and liabilities. The assets include the various authors' cautiously revolutionary perspective, which allows them to review the previous 240 years worth of Shakespearean scholarship with respectful but skeptical eyes. We are exposed to the opinions of such scholars as Edmund Chambers, Stanley Wells, F. G. Fleay, Geoffrey Bullough, Peter Alexander, J. Dover Wilson and others too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say that the scholars whose opinions are considered in this book are generally held to be the most respectable to have written on the question.

Another asset of the book is that each of the essays considers the possibility that that particular play was written by the Earl of Oxford. Evidence for Oxfordian authorship, and for a range of dates for possible composition by him, is considered alongside the discussion for various dates under the orthodox, or Stratfordian, position, i.e., that the plays were written by the apparently uneducated and graphically challenged glover's son from Stratford.

Another quality of the book, which the reader may regard as either an asset or a liability, is that none of the essays opine whether the author was the Earl of Oxford or the Stratford man.

This is the book's greatest liability, in my opinion. Because the authors take no position on the question of who the author was, and therefore can espouse no view on how the development of the author's artistic talent may have lead him to compose this or that play in this or that year, the authors must fall back to the scant and inconclusive evidence found in the plays themselves. Therefore, each play is assigned a chronological range of composition, ranging from the date of publication of the latest source used in the play, which is then offered as the earliest possible date of composition, to the date of the play's publication, or, if it wasn't published until the First Folio in 1623, to the first known date of the play's performance, or to its mention in Meres' Palladis Tamia (1598), or to its certain mention in other known sources, any one of which is then offered as the latest date that the play would have been written.

While intellectually honest, such a method leaves, in many instances, a window of thirty to forty years during which time the play could have been composed. Most of the plays, the authors tell us, could have been written in any year between 1577 and 1598 or 1623. This method doesn't tell us enough. Flute, the Bellows mender, could have told us as much.

"There is no contemporary evidence to date the composition of any play attributed to Shakespere," writes Gilvary. "As there is no evidence to tie any play to a particular date, every attempt to sequence the plays in order of composition is mere speculation. We do not know when the plays of shakespeare were written, or in what order."
Keel
While I concur with much of what the previous reviewer says, both as regards the assets and liabilities of this book, I think his ultimate 3 star assessment is unfairly harsh. This is the first and only book of which I am aware, since E.K.Chambers 1935 *Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems,* to objectively examine from first first principles the problem of the chronology of the Shakespearean plays.

As such, the book effectively disproves the commonly held belief that the 17th Earl of Oxford cannot have been the author because it is certain that several plays (some claim as many as a dozen) were written after his death. It is simply not true to claim that this is a fact. It is a conjecture, albeit one widely held, mostly by those with little knowledge of the actual evidence made available more or less comprehensively in this remarkable book.

Those who wish to consider asserting that Oxford's authorship can't be considered on chronological grounds must deal with the arguments presented in this book and show why they are wrong. I doubt they will be able to meet this burden off proof. The authors of the various chapters, and especially Dr. Gilvary himself, deserve congratulations for a fine work of scholarship.
Wenes
Beautifully researched, thanks for making it available on kindle!
Shou
Finally, a research work comes along that starts with the sources behind Shakespeare's works, and works forward from there.

It also appears to be the first such work that avoids the many unsubstantiated "traditions" and myths that typically surround all things Shakespeare. How often have we heard that Merry Wives was written at the personal request of Queen Elizabeth? Never mind that this story was completely made up.

Thankfully, this book relys on verfiable facts, and acknowledges what most scholars avoid - that the chronology of Shakespeare's plays is unknown and most chronologies are built on guesswork and circular reasoning. This book explains why.

Every student of Shakespeare should read this. And every Professor should put aside their preconceived notions and biases, and consider what this book has to offer.
lind-peinture.fr
© All right reserved. 2017-2020
Contacts | Privacy Policy | DMCA
eBooks are provided for reference only