e-book The Critics Versus Shakespeare: A Brief for the Defendant

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Critics Versus Shakespeare: A Brief for the Defendant file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Critics Versus Shakespeare: A Brief for the Defendant book. Happy reading The Critics Versus Shakespeare: A Brief for the Defendant Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Critics Versus Shakespeare: A Brief for the Defendant at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Critics Versus Shakespeare: A Brief for the Defendant Pocket Guide.

Preface To Shakespeare. Shakespeare Study Programs: the Comedies.

Hand-up brief - Oxford Reference

Charlotte Porter. Timon of Athens. Works of Pericles. Wrinkled Deep in Time. Maurice Charney. Notes to Shakespeare: The Comedies and Tragedies.

The Two Noble Kinsmen. Preface to Shakespeare.

Join Kobo & start eReading today

Souls with Longing. Bernard J. Shakespeare's Villains. Cadenus and Vanessa. Shakespeare's Plays.

Act IV, scene i, lines 1–163

Mose Durst. Tonnvane Wiswell. Franklin's Way to Wealth and Penn's Maxims. Plagiarism and Imitation Duri Cb. Harold Ogden White.

Spiritual Values in Shakespeare. Ernest Marshall Howse. Shakspere and Montaigne. Jacob Feis. The Sonnets. The Late Romances. Spirit, Soul, and City. Jan H.

Sidelights on Elizabethan Drama. On melancholy. Robert Burton. The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspere Unfolded. Delia Bacon. Plays and Puritans. Charles Kingsley. Funeral Elegy. The Man Shakespeare. Frank Harris. The Poems. When Honour's at the Stake Routledge Revivals.

Norman Council. Deadly Thought. A Vindication Of The Press. Daniel Defoe. Essay upon Wit. Sir Richard Blackmore. Twelve contain some kind of reference to Shakespeare. He published a complete transcript in the October issue of Nebraska University Studies.

This choice of periodical does not now make for easy availability, but seems commendable as one in the eye for the Athenaeum. There, duly vetted, one may consult it. Ensconced behind two locked doors in the Safe Room, I carefully extract from the box this sheet of greyish, coarse-grained paper which Shakespeare once handled, rather less carefully, on a Monday morning nearly four centuries ago. It is hard to say quite what the page has which the photographic reproductions of it do not.

The signature is clearer, of course. That dot inside the arcade of the W is very sharp: it stares out like a beady eye. The ill-formed k is perceivable as a sudden blotching of ink — a malfunction of the unfamiliar courtroom pen, perhaps. Beyond this one has to resort to vaguer sensations. After some moments of cargo-cultish reverence, and some futile speculation about fingerprints and DNA traces, I turn to the other papers in the box, also found by Wallace, most of which have never been reproduced.

There are four sets of documents. These are the initial pleadings of the case.


  • ‘The Lodger Shakespeare’.
  • Fort Lauderdale’s 2014 “Social Service Facilities” Law.
  • Food Not Bombs | foodsharinglaw;

Some phrasings suggest these texts had been written, in the first instance, a year or more previously. All the depositions were recorded by the same clerk, on the same kind of paper, written on one side only. A courtroom scene in a seventeenth-century woodcut gives us something of the set-up — the clerk writing, the judge listening, the papers on the table. The papers, four folios in all, are in good condition apart from some mouldering down the lower-right edge, with some minor loss of text. At the second session, on 19 June , there were six deponents.

First up was Daniel Nicholas, again: he is the most active and involved of the witnesses. At the third session, on 23 June, witnesses called by the defence were examined. Of the nine witnesses in the case, five have a specified relationship to one or other of the disputants a brother, a stepfather, an apprentice, a lodger and a maid and four can be summed up under the general heading of friends and neighbours. Seven of the nine live in London, either in or immediately adjacent to the Cripplegate area; and the two that do not — Joan Johnson of Ealing and Shakespeare of Stratford — had formerly lived in the area.

This is a local story: its physical boundaries can be paced in half an hour. That the mother and daughter have the same forename is a small inconvenience. Many immigrant families Anglicized their names, as this one seems to have done — hence Christopher Mountjoy rather than Christophe Montjoi or Montjoie.

This is not to deny their foreignness, an intrinsic aspect of the story, nor their sense of themselves as French. In these depositions we make our first acquaintance with some of the protagonists of this book — people personally known to Shakespeare: his landlord and landlady, the apprentice Belott and others. We get an impression of them, though conscious that a lawsuit can give a distorted, or anyway narrow, view of those involved. View all New York Times newsletters. Our first impression of Christopher Mountjoy is that he is a mean and rather crabby sort of man. His antagonist Stephen Belott is no less intransigent but the tone is cooler.

In contrast, one gets a gentler, more amenable note from the late Mrs Mountjoy. As there is evidence that the litigation began some while before the case came to court, this visit might be around or so. Belott, says Nicholas,. And asking Shakespeare thereof, he answered that he [Mountjoy] promised if the plaintiff would marry with Mary his only daughter, he would by his promise, as he [Shakespeare] remembered, give the plaintiff with her in marriage about the sum of fifty pounds in money and certain household stuff.

One notes a discrepancy here. Does this tell us something? Was his memory — that miraculously agile and sensitive instrument — beginning to fail? The vagueness of his statements in court has been interpreted this way, but it seems that his memory was, in this instance, more selective than defective. Nicholas also adds to the small store of Shakespearean utterances we have gleaned from his own deposition.

For whatever reason, the court considered this inadmissible. Finally, on 30 June , the court handed down its judgment. The ledgers of the French Church, which was then on Threadneedle Street and is now in Soho Square, have some fragmentary records of the case.

Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Wit and Wisdom from Poor Richard's Almanack. Benjamin Franklin. Shakespeare Criticism and Commentary: 24 Books. Charles Algernon Swinburne. The Winter's Tale. The Battle of the Books, and other Short Pieces. Jonathan Swift. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Paradise Regained Mobi Classics.

The Critics Versus Shakspere by Francis Asbury Smith

John Milton. The Fable of the Bees. Bernard Mandeville. Tolstoy on Shakespeare. Leo Tolstoy. Notes to Shakespeare's Comedies. Samuel Johnson. Troilus and Cressida. Christopher Marlowe. Works of Thomas More. A Midsummer Night's Dream. Henry Norman Hudson. Shakespeare's Festive Comedy. Cesar Lombardi Barber. Preface To Shakespeare. Shakespeare Study Programs; The Comedies.

Charlotte Endymion Porter. Timon of Athens. Works of Pericles. Wrinkled Deep in Time. Maurice Charney. Notes to Shakespeare: The Comedies and Tragedies. The Two Noble Kinsmen. Preface to Shakespeare. Souls with Longing. Bernard J. Shakespeare's Villains. Cadenus and Vanessa. Shakespeare's Plays. Mose Durst. Tonnvane Wiswell. Franklin's Way to Wealth and Penn's Maxims.

Plagiarism and Imitation Duri Cb.