The Archbishop’s Oration and the Tudor Myth


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0382  Friday, 17 September 2012


From:        Harvey Roy Greenberg <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 14, 2012 6:30:27 PM EDT

Subject:     The Archbishop’s Oration and the Tudor Myth


A paper I’ve been working on for some time concerns the appropriate means—if any exist—of staging the Archbishop of Canterbury’s oration before King and court at the beginning of Henry V, Act I, Sc. 2.


The points I need clarified, although not necessarily germane to the main dramaturgical argument, have to do with the presence or absence of the Archbishop, Henry Chichele, at the King’s ‘great parliament’ in Leicester at which the oration was supposedly given (according to the Chronicles). Essentially, Shakespeare took the speech and refashioned it in choice iambic pentameter, changes not a whit of its content.


Yet I’ve heard it said that the Archbishop was not in fact at Leicester, and did not give the speech; I do not know where the Chronicles’ derived it. It is mentioned the Foxe’s martyrology that the speech was given, but only its general import.


I have lost the reference, but I seem to recall that as part of a furbishing the Tudor myth, an author—Champion? Campion?—somewhere around 1540 essentially invented the speech and the circumstances of its oration. This seems to be a very vexed issue, and I am not a Shakespearean scholar. Can anyone enlighten me about this supposed history in or around 1540. I know a bit about Polydore, but not much, and it was not he who promulgated the pseudo-history, if such it be.


Corollary questions, and I do not know if they can ever be answered: Did the Holinshed chroniclers take what they set down as received truth, or know they were fibbing. And what was Shakespeare’s view of the events the Chronicles set down, notably the speech? Did he know that he was stroking the Tudor myth, so to speak, that the speech was never given; or did he suppose that the speech was well and truly spoken.


Again, my central interest is the internal consistency within the play, and rendering the arcane and prolix oration into some semblance of meaning and dramatic interest for a contemporary audience, the members of which I would suppose had little interest in the sundry Blithids, Irmengards, Pepins, of the tangled French succession. Still, for the sake of reasonably good scholarship, it would be nice to know whether the speech did take place, did not take place, or is simply, or complexly still a ‘vexed question from a historical point of view.


I do believe that despite its length, prolixity, and arcane subject matter, Shakespeare intended that audiences should receive it, attend to it as seriously and soberly as did the king and court as described by Holinshed’s chronicles. Reading in between the lines, there seems no great occasion for mirth arising from an oration which was supposed to furnish the king with the rationale for a bloody and expensive war. The most one would suppose of mirth would be a wintry smile or so at the Bishop’s words, original or in the play, that his reasoning was ‘clear as the summer sun’. Which makes any comedic reading, such as Aylmer’s in the Olivier film the cheapest of cheap shots.


Any help would be greatly appreciated on the historical points.


Harvey Roy Greenberg MD

King Lear Analysis: Appointed Guard


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0381  Friday, 14 September 2012


From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 13, 2012 7:25:19 PM EDT

Subject:     King Lear Analysis: Appointed Guard


Textually speaking, one King Lear passage has special status because opinions hang on its analysis—which needs improving. I’ll start with one who gets it wrong before I add to the extensive confusions.


T. H. Howard-Hill was an effective critic; reviewing Division, he noted that “the trivial or indifferent character of many of the variations which are brought forward to illustrate [Shakespearean] revision can allow [suspicion] that . . . the distinctive literary consequences of the variation are more a measure of the critical sensitivity of the scholars . . . than an indication of a purposed, consistent revision . . .” Still, he allowed two-text theory “a strong likelihood” and helped to extend its life with an influential argument. In 1982 he questioned Greg’s case that Q1 had been collated with a theatrical manuscript to produce F. Stone’s work had encouraged Howard-Hill to posit Q2 as F copy, when Q1 might be eliminated as an immediate ancestor. Because use of the 1608 Q1 impedes revision theory by forcing Shakespeare to begin his project on corrupt text at an implausible date, Howard-Hill undertook to reduce Q1’s relevance with new analysis of a seemingly crucial phrase at 5.3.47 (* . . . *), where Edmund informs Albany of Lear’s detention:


  Bast. Sir I thought it fit,

To saue the old and miserable King to some retention, (5.3.47)

Whose age has charmes in it,whose title more

To pluck the coren bossom of his side,

And turne our imprest launces in our eyes,

Which doe commaund them . . .

(Qa TLN 2706–2711; K4v21–26)


To send the old and miserable King to some retention, *and ap-

Whose age has charmes in it,whose title more, (pointed guard,*

To pluck the common bossome of his side,

(Qb TLN 2707–09; K4v22–24)


To send the old and miserable King

To some retention, *and appointed guard,*

Whose age has charmes in it, whose Title more,

To plucke the common blossomes of his side,

(Q2 K4v11–14)


To send the old and miserable King to some retention,

Whose age had Charmes in it,whose Title more,

To plucke the common bosome on his side,

(F 5.3.47–49 [TLN 2990–92])


Q1 and F were probably foul-proofed and Q1 was corrected at press; “and appointed guard,” (a phrase unlikely to be created by a corrector was squeezed into line 47. F compositor E’s reliance on Q2 provided opportunity to retain the phrase and the lineation of Edmund’s speech, whose first twelve lines are spoiled only by the extrametrical additions (typical of reporting?), twice each, of Sir and do. Yet F follows Qa in both mislineation and omission, by which Greg infers that F copy was collated with Qa, the uncorrected state of outer K.


Howard-Hill theorizes an alternative history for 5.3.47, reduced here to his propositions: (1) The phrase “and appointed guard” was misplaced in Shakespeare’s draft (the assumed Q1 copy). (2) Its position caused it to be omitted by a Q1 compositor and (3) omitted independently by a scribe (4) whom Shakespeare employed for a fair copy to become the “promptbook.” (5) The phrase was subsequently restored and then (6) underlined. (7) A collator of F copy took the underlining as a mark for deletion, when the phrase was removed a third time. (8) Line 47 was identically lined in Qa, the foul papers, and promptbook. (9) Howard-Hill sees “and appointed guard” as Shakespeare’s afterthought “that may have been added merely to improve the meter.” (He takes Qa’s “To send the old and miserable King to some retention” as an “acceptable hexameter,” but fourteen syllables are unlikely to have been composed or retained in Shakespearean pentameter verse.


In the absence of evidence Howard-Hill’s “appointed” history is virtually impossible in light of its many interdependent improbabilities. Factoring in foul papers (his enabling, unargued assumption), this explanation of Q1-only anomaly showing up in F has no value. Despite his assessment as “unprovable except from a chain of consequences,” and weakness in every link, Howard-Hill assigns more than alternative status to his story. Acknowledging Q1 readings transmitted only from Q2, he advises that a Q1 F-source can be 'dismissed' and 'removed' from consideration.


Because Q2 influence on F dominates recent discussion one may overlook the many Q1/F agreements against Q2—including errors, anomalous punctuation, and variant Q2 “correction.” At 4.6.119, “for I lacke souldiers” (Q1/F) becomes “for I want souldiers”. Possible sources for F’s reading are Q1 or a separate manuscript. If Q1 is the source, then all the other Q1/Q2/F correspondences might originate in a report. Q2 can’t decide F's authority; the question is about Q1 copy. Lear editors uncritically accept Howard-Hill’s sequence while failing to appreciate that his conjectural string (in its most generous reception) can only be alternative to the inference that Q1 affects F independently of Q2. New Cambridge editor Halio allows that F “substantive readings and alterations derive from the [authoritative] manuscript; accidentals and orthography from Q2.” Apparently swayed by argument that Q1 omission and lineation is transmitted through a playhouse promptbook, he discounts Blayney’s and Stone’s opinion that F revises Q1 itself.


{It is objected that promptbook is anachronistic but the term merely refers to a text used (or prepared for use) in a dramatic production. Gary Taylor refers to the usage (“Folio Compositors and Folio Copy” PBSA 79): “We have no clear evidence that the manuscript was a prompt-book, or a derivative of one.” Q1 in any case was a playtext; the publishers might have hoped to produce a Lear “cured, perfect of its limbs, and all the rest” with no plans for production.}


Arden 3 editor Foakes acknowledges the “consensus that the text in F has a significant relation with Q2, and no direct link with Q1.” Mediating Q1 influence through Q2 on the strength of one bad argument, Foakes and others postulate an authorial revision prior to 1608 (and therefore not based on Q1 at all). Most improbably, this revision of an imaginary manuscript is supposed to have compatibly shared F-copy duties with a corrupt Q2. More simply, F originates in Q1, as does the 1619 reprint.

Single instances can be decisive, but this shared omission isn’t crucial. According to two-text advocate and Oxford editor Taylor, “If Q1 is a ‘bad quarto,’ then Q—and hence F—is pervasively corrupt.” And if so, the error (only one of multitudes) bears little on any issue. The seeming importance comes by failing to prioritize the evidence. Taylor (as Greg) sees Qa ancestry in the omission: If “Q1 were a ‘bad’ quarto”—to date revision after 1608—“is essentially Stone’s hypothesis, though he does not himself recognize the importance of this variant.” But three omitted words can’t greatly affect the question of Q1 provenance (which Taylor pointedly declines to address). Stone is not short on argument that Q1 is a bad quarto, but no good case has ever been made for foul papers Q1 copy.


{Jowett, “After Oxford,” 77: “No one to date has advanced coherent explanations of all the ‘bad’ quartos that do away with memorial transmission entirely”: Halio, First Quarto, 5, acknowledges that Q1 “matter seemingly points to a reported or memorially reconstructed text.” However, he explains (as Doran) that “Shakespeare himself was an actor.”}


If Q1 is “pervasively corrupt,” then F is its derivative no matter what happened in the transmission of 5.3.47 – when conjectural explanations of one Qa/F omission are not of much worth. Nevertheless, Stone approaches this crux more intelligently. He observes that Q1’s influence on F is indicated less by the omission than the identical, anomalous lineation in both Qa and Qb (134, and n.8). He further suggests that the phrase was purposely deleted during revision—not of Qa, but of Qb—and that when the resultant F copy was “collated” with Q2, the compositor opted to reproduce the manuscript revision. The important fact is that, of twenty-seven variants in outer K, only the missing 5.3.47 phrase indicates Qa influence on F. Because Q2 shares Qb-derived readings with F, the Qa/F omission may be an irrelevant coincidence. Stone observes that in context the phrase “appears to produce a false relation between guard and the relative pronoun” (whose):


   Bast. Sir I thought it fit,

To send the old and miserable King to some retention, and ap-

Whose age has charmes in it, whose title more, (pointed guard,

            (Qb TLN 2706–2708)


Stone hypothesizes that by deleting the phrase a reviser had removed “the temptation to understand appointed . . . as a second main verb,” when the reader or auditor takes “guard as the (absurd) antecedent of whose” (237). This Qb analysis relies on syntactical, grammatical, and outer K realities, not on assumptions. The text is easily misunderstood; Stone’s conjecture may well be correct.


In Division Gary Taylor argues misleadingly against Stone’s view of this passage. He suggests that “Stone recognizes the need for a common ancestor” to forestall “an absolutely incredible coincidence” of the same omission (and lineation) in a bad quarto (Q1) and in the independent F manuscript copy. But Stone of course posits only the manuscript that derives from Q1 (and its copy).


Taylor argues further that the phrase is required by the meter and therefore, presumably, redactors were required to care. Sometimes they didn’t care enough to preserve the meter; after all, it’s lost in Qa and in F (despite attempts at correction throughout). Because meter is a concern from an author’s standpoint, anomaly is a sign of corruption. But one can't assume that other agents would fix matters. Taylor also suggests the omission couldn’t have happened from eyeskip. I think it could (at one remove).


Beyond these objections Taylor’s argument is typically rhetorical. Stone “presupposes that the adapter deliberately excised . . . .” But Stone doesn’t presuppose anything; he analyzes sentence structure. “Stone’s excuse . . . .” Stone’s reason is another way to put it. The “ambiguity is more apparent than real . . . .” But what’s the difference? If a reader or auditor can take a wrong meaning, even momentarily, it’s real enough. Some may be persuaded by this manner of argument, but it isn’t fair to Peter Stone, or to textual inquiry.


{Howard-Hill, “Q1 and Copy” 429-30, remarks the possible use of Qb outer K: “When the Folio collator took up the promptbook, it contained the phrase ‘and appointed guard’. No-one has suggested that the promptbook was defective in this respect and certainly, from Greg’s viewpoint, if the phrase did not occur in the promptbook, its absence from F could not assist the hypothesis that [Qa] provided the basis of F copy. So the promptbook contained a complete text of the passage.” Howard-Hill omits reference to Stone, who did suggest a “promptbook” omitted the phrase (via a revised, corrected outer K: Qb). In Stone’s case, Qa isn’t the basis of F. Greg’s opinion is subject to modification; Qb influence is Q1 influence. Lineation is the important fact reproduced in F. Corroborating Stone (again with no citation), Howard-Hill observes that if “the phrase was not in F [sic; F copy?] one could argue—with substantial support from the appearance of [Qb] variants in the Folio text—that F copy here had been prepared from [Qb, when 5.3.47] would be useless to prove Greg’s theory since the other variants of Q1 were transmitted by Q2” (430, n.16). Yet the Qa/Qb lineation, invariant in Q1, is not transmitted in Q2. Observations so carefully worded with no reference to Stone lead me to think that his reasonable conjecture has been dodged.}


My explication of the coincidental earlier Qa omission is of a printing-house affair. Two verse lines crammed into one line of Qb indicates restoration of omission, which is confirmed by Qa—with a line that is itself too long for a speech otherwise metrically correct. Qa may be a foul-proof miscorrection: 


   Bast. Sir I thought it fit,

To saue the old and miserable King to some retention,

Whose age has charmes in it, whose title more

To pluck the coren bossom of his side,


There’s no reason to think the compositor tried to make sense of these lines; context can’t suggest deletion of “and appointed guard” if context (coren bossom) doesn’t matter. But what if the copy was regular?  


to saue the old and [miserable King

to some retention and] appointed guard,


The compositor could have set “To saue the old and” before returning to the wrong and, mistakenly to continue with “appointed guard . . . ”. (On Moxon’s authority, the compositor “reads so much of his Copy as he thinks he can retain in his memory till he have Composed it, as commonly is five or six words . . .”) A foul proof omitting “miserable King to some retention and” would have read:


To saue the old and appointed guard,

Whose age has charmes in it, whose title more


The meaning would have been all the same to the compositor; that is, none to speak of. There is nothing obviously wrong with the grammar or syntax (where whose refers to guard after all). When the omission was detected, the corrector’s instructions may have accidentally induced the compositor to omit “and appointed guard” when he restored “miserable King to some retention”. A word causing eyeskip omission (‘and’) also may cause confusion; proper restoration is not always intuitive.


This solution (analogous to Blayney’s “fiery Duke” miscorrection) relies on the factual Qb restoration; the hypermetrical Qa line; the universally inferred complete Q1 printer’s copy; foul foul-proofing; and eyeskip (the most coren cause of omission). The secondarily omitted “and appointed guard” would be restored with other Qb corrections (with no room to repair the verse lining). If this or a similar sequence is correct, the Qa and F omissions are less informative of a relationship between editions than of printing error and proofing before presswork. The overlong line 47 still indicates that F stems from Q1, but transmission error accounts for the text well enough to doubt its value in establishing Shakespeare’s presence in the middle of the Q/F textual history.


Why do editors uncritically accept Howard-Hill’s bad argument to the exclusion of the better inference that F derives from Q1? It’s less about the text than preservation of a tradition that Shakespeare is central not only to the creation of his works, but to their transmission and evolution. King Lear (despite its problems) almost always exemplifies the concept because the F text is presumed to be authorized.


For decades (centuries) Q1 was considered a faulty reproduction of F, though each contain additional matter. Since the early 1980’s most all agree that F is best characterized as a revision of Q1, or Q1-like text. Taylor asserts of “and appointed guard,” that “if Q1 were . . . printed from a memorial reconstruction, the manuscript from which it was printed would have no direct relationship with Shakespeare’s foul papers;” which can't explain the omission in common with an authorized F. But in that case, few of the many Q1/F features in common could be explained. Therefore, any suggestion that Q1 is a bad quarto must be rejected or F itself loses its authority.


So now “Shakespeare Central” needs more than authorial F King Lear; it needs foul papers behind Q1. If the authorial draft can be situated somewhere in time before Q1 – by easy acceptance of Howard-Hill’s retrograde analysis, for example – so much the better. Otherwise it may seem reasonable to suppose that Q1, accessible to anyone, was not Shakespeare’s exclusively to revise; or even that it is a bad quarto. As it happens Q1 was long thought to be a memorial transmission and Stone tried to revive a form of the theory (almost correctly, in my view). Moreover, opinion has swayed (inevitably) toward rejecting the Oxford editors’ over-ambitious claim for Shakespeare's revision. Presumably, Richard Knowles’s Variorum edition will argue forcefully against it.


But that’s no longer the issue. As long as we have Shakespeare’s foul papers, authority is maintained. We even have “Shakespeare at Work.” The big hole in this narrative is that no one has ever made the case for foul papers. Taylor and Wells said that was a waste of time because Blayney had proved it. Howard-Hill said we “can only assume that Q1’s memorial errors are scribal . . . or compositorial” until Blayney finishes Volume Two. Are we still that helpless thirty years later? Perhaps not, because H-H in 1997 (halfway) noted that the “consensus established by Warren, Urkowitz, Taylor, Blayney, and others understands that Q1 prints Shakespeare’s early draft . . .” How do we get a ‘consensus of understanding’ without an argument? In 1990 Paul Werstine suggested an answer: “It would seem that the category of ‘foul papers,’ in the full sense that Greg gave it, is the product not of reason but of desire – our desire to possess in the ‘good’ quartos Shakespeare’s plays in the form in which he, as an individual agent, both began and finished them.”


In 1980, when Stone was renewing the case for theatrical reporting of Q1, Steven Urkowitz argued for foul papers on the basis that it is the “one explanation [that] does not require the acceptance of hypotheses that are either demonstrably false or so complex as to be patently improbable.” That is, 'foul papers' is accepted because the alternatives don’t work. But Stone showed good reason to doubt foul papers and to posit a report.


Lately I have argued that shorthand transcription is “demonstrably true” of a particular playtext caught in the act. It’s a pretty extensive case backed up by numerous corroborating playtexts with the same features that have seemed so mysterious in the past. “Foul papers” theory can boast, but boast of no empirical evidence that helps to “establish an understanding.” Why not test these alternatives head-to-head?


Richard Knowles probably won’t do that in his Lear edition because he hasn’t questioned the foul papers hypothesis but reverts to Doran’s old argument that evidence for manuscript F copy indicates a relation to Q1 copy—which must mean two authorial texts: foul papers and fair copy.


Knowles thinks Doran’s arm was twisted to make her recant but her assumption doesn’t preclude the alternative that F derives from Q1. A scribal copy (including revision) would be subject to misreadings of the Secretary Hand and it is hard to deny that copy is related to copy-text. (There is a possibility that another manuscript was involved but that’s another story.)


Gerald E. Downs

Latest in Search for Richard III’s Skeleton


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0380  Friday, 14 September 2012


From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         Friday, September 14, 2012

Subject:     Latest in Search for Richard III’s Skeleton


The Telegraph has the latest in the search for Richard III’s body. There is also a video embedded in the story.


Archaeologists believe they have found skeleton of King Richard III


By Nick Britten


Over 500 years since he was killed in battle, archaeologists believe they have finally found the skeleton of King Richard III, buried deep beneath a council car park.


Experts said a fully intact skeleton matched much about what they knew about the medieval king, and are hoping that DNA tests will put their beliefs beyond doubt.


The remains were found three weeks into an archaeological dig by a team from Leicester University, which recently pinpointed the site of the ancient Grey Friars church, where Richard was believed to be buried after being killed in the Battle of Bosworth in August 1485, and which was razed to the ground in 1538 during the Dissolution of the Monasteries ordered by Henry VIII.


To their astonishment, an excavation unearthed a result which experts said were “beyond our wildest dreams”.


A memorial stone to him rests in Leicester Cathedral, but nobody knows precisely where he was buried


Five key aspects underlined their belief that appears to have ended a decade-long search for his remains.


The skeleton was an adult male, who appeared fit and strong. He had suffered significant trauma to the head where a blade had cut away part of the back of his skull; an injury consistent with battle.


A barbed arrow head was found lodged between vertebrae in his upper back, and spinal abnormalities pointed to the fact that he had severe scoliosis, a form of spinal curvature. This would have made his right shoulder appear visibly higher than his left, which is consistent with contemporary accounts of Richard’s appearance.


Richard’s two year reign was the subject of one of William Shakespeare’s most famous plays, which portrayed him as an evil, ugly hunchback, and which helped cement the public perception of him.


[ . . . ]


Little has ever been known about Richard III’s death, other than he died on the battlefield and was supposedly taken on horseback by his vanquisher, Henry Tudor, who later became King Henry VII. He remains the last King of England to die in battle.


[ . . . ]


Richard Taylor, from Leicester University, whose team of experts led the dig, said: “We are not saying today that we have found Richard III. What we are saying is that the search for Richard III has entered a new phase. 


[ . . . ]


DNA tests are expected to take 12 weeks, and Turi King, from the university’s department of genetics, said that if they were not able to extract DNA or if tests proved inconclusive, they were unlikely to be any other avenues to prove conclusively the skeleton was the King’s.


The site, underneath a social work car park in Leicester city centre, will undergo further examination but is unlikely to be preserved for the public to view. Once all the tests are done, the skeleton – if it is Richard III – will be buried in Leicester.


Hamlet at the Folger: The Globe Way of Doing Shakespeare


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0379  Thursday, 13 September 2012


From:        Ellen Moody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 13, 2012 9:16:06 AM EDT

Subject:     Hamlet at the Folger: The Globe Way of Doing Shakespeare


The Globe company brings Hamlet the Folger Shakespeare Theater: while I much enjoyed the performance and liked how I was led really to listen to the poetry, the distanced way of acting was too stylized for me to become deeply engaged:


I link in a recent performance of an abridged version of Hamlet and the Shenandoah Shakespeare (who also do it with the lights on).


Ellen Moody

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Latest Issue of Cahiers Elisabethains


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0378  Thursday, 13 September 2012


From:        Jean-Christophe Mayer <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 13, 2012 12:58:38 PM EDT

Subject:     Latest Issue of Cahiers Elisabethains


Dear List Members,


The latest issue of Cahiers Elisabethains is now available: Cahiers Elisabethains 81 (2012).


* Please note also that article submissions are now open for the next issues of the journal. For details about submissions and/or subscriptions, please see the end of this message.




Editorial Policy






The Gods’ Lasciviousness, Or How To Deal With It? The Plight Of Early Modern Mythographers (Charlotte Coffin)


The Changeling at Court (Mark Hutchings)


Massinger’s Believe As You List and the Politics of Necessity (Marina Hila)



The Pricking in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 20 (Rodney Stenning Edgecombe)



The American Shakespeare Center: “They Do it With the Lights On” (Marina Favila)



A Midsummer Night’s Dream, directed by Theu Boermans for Het Nationale Toneel, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, 10 January 2012 (Coen Heijes)


Troilus and Cressida, directed by Tina Packer, Actors’ Shakespeare Project, The Modern Theatre at Suffolk University, Boston, Massachusetts, 28 April 2012 (Kaara L. Peterson)


Twelfth Night, directed by Melia Bensussen for the Actors’ Shakespeare Project, Plaza Theatre at the Boston Center for the Arts, Boston, Massachusetts, 15 October 2011 (Richard J. Larschan)


Much Ado About Nothing, directed by Joe Dowling for the Guthrie Theater, Wurtele Thrust Stage, Minneapolis, 6 October 2011, centre-front stalls, and 3 November 2011


Julius Caesar, directed by Rob Melrose for the Acting Company in partnership with the Guthrie Theater, Dowling Studio, Minneapolis, 17 January 2012 (Gayle Gaskill)


Measure for Measure, directed by Roxana Silbert for the Royal Shakespeare Company, The Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 23 November 2011 (John Jowett)


The Taming of the Shrew, an RSC Young People’s Shakespeare production directed by Tim Crouch, using an abridged text edited by the director, The Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, 10 October 2011 (Jon Harvey)


Doctor Faustus, directed by Matthew Dunster, Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre, 23 June 2011 (Eleanor Collins)


A Midsummer Night’s Dream, directed by Sean Holmes for Filter, Curve, Leicester, 2 November 2011 (Peter Kirwan)


The Changeling, directed by Joe Hill-Gibbins, Young Vic, London, 25 February 2012 (Penelope Geng)


King Lear, directed by Andrew Hilton, The Tobacco Factory, Bristol, 29 February 2012 (Peter J. Smith)


Richard III and The Comedy of Errors, directed by Edward Hall for Propeller, Hampstead Theatre, London, 29 June 2011 (José A. Pérez Diez)


The Two Gentlemen of Verona, directed by Matthew Dunster, Royal & Derngate, Northampton, 14 October 2011 (Elinor Parsons)


Macbeth [Aspects], directed by Julien Guill, La Laiterie des Beaux-Arts, Montpellier, 27 February 2011 (Gaëlle Ginestet)


’Tis Pity She’s a Whore, by John Ford, directed by Declan Donnellan, Les Gémeaux, Scène Nationale-Sceaux, Sceaux, 4 December and 8 December 2011 (Stéphane Huet)


Le Songe d’une nuit d’été [A Midsummer Night’s Dream], directed by Nicolas Briançon, Théâtre de la Porte Saint-Martin, Paris, 22 October 2011 (Estelle Rivier)


Roméo et Juliette, directed and translated by Olivier Py, Théâtre National Populaire de Villeurbanne, 12 January 2012 (Nathalie Crouau)



Gilles Monsarrat, Sir Brian Vickers FBA, and R. J. C. Watt, eds., The Collected Works of John Ford, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) (Yves Peyré)


Iain Beavan, Peter Davidson and Jane Stevenson, eds., The Library and Archive Collections of the University of Aberdeen: An Introduction and Description (Manchester: Manchester University Press, with the University of Aberdeen, 2011) (Stuart Sillars)


Maria Franziska Fahey, Metaphor and Shakespearean Drama: Unchaste Signification (Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) (David Coleman)


Graham Holderness, Nine Lives of William Shakespeare (London and New York: Continuum, 2011) (Alice Leonard)


Alexander C. Y. Huang, Chinese Shakespeares: Two Centuries of Cultural Exchange (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009) (Jesse Field)



Compiled by Janice Valls-Russell


INDEXES (Cahiers Élisabéthains 71-80): after page 92

Author Index / Subject Index / Play Review Index


To order issues:  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>


Submissions can be send to either of Cahiers's assistant editors: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> or <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>


More information: <>



Jean-Christophe Mayer and Nathalie Vienne-Guerrin

Co-General Editors

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.