Parroiall (Pareil?) of Princes: Difference between revisions
m (standardising formatting) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
==Critical Commentary== | ==Critical Commentary== | ||
The meaning of "parroiall" is uncertain. Greg proposes that it could be from "Parail" (apparel); "Pareil" (equal mate); "Parol" (utterance); or "Parole" (word of honour). (Greg, <i>BEPD</i>). Bentley, 5.1387, repeats Greg's observation. Both neglect the suggestion of Sibley that the word should be read as "pair royal", a moderately frequent seventeenth century idiom for a set of three. | The meaning of "parroiall" is uncertain. Greg proposes that it could be from "Parail" (apparel); "Pareil" (equal mate); "Parol" (utterance); or "Parole" (word of honour). (Greg, <i>BEPD</i>). Bentley, 5.1387, repeats Greg's observation. Both neglect the suggestion of Sibley (118) that the word should be read as "pair royal", a moderately frequent seventeenth century idiom for a set of three. | ||
==For What It's Worth== | ==For What It's Worth== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 47: | ||
[[category:all]] [[category:Princes]] [[category:Card games]] [[category:Unknown]][[category:Stationers' Register]] [[category:Possibly corrupt titles]] | |||
| Line 56: | Line 55: | ||
==Works Cited== | ==Works Cited== | ||
Fuller, Thomas. <i>The historie of the holy warre</i>. Cambridge: Thomas Buck, 1639. | :Fuller, Thomas. <i>The historie of the holy warre</i>. Cambridge: Thomas Buck, 1639. | ||
Site created and maintained by [[ | Site created and maintained by [[Matthew Steggle]] 10 December 2009.[[category:Matthew Steggle]] | ||
Latest revision as of 15:52, 10 December 2021
Historical Records
Bentley, 5.1326. Stationers' Register, 15 April 1641. Entered for John Nicholson
- three playes, vizt. A Tragedy called Charles, Duke of Burbon, The Parroiall of Princes & England's first happines, or, the Life of St. Austin... xviiid.
Theatrical Provenance
unknown
Probable Genre(s)
unknown
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
none known
References to the Play
none known
Critical Commentary
The meaning of "parroiall" is uncertain. Greg proposes that it could be from "Parail" (apparel); "Pareil" (equal mate); "Parol" (utterance); or "Parole" (word of honour). (Greg, BEPD). Bentley, 5.1387, repeats Greg's observation. Both neglect the suggestion of Sibley (118) that the word should be read as "pair royal", a moderately frequent seventeenth century idiom for a set of three.
For What It's Worth
I would propose that Sibley is clearly right. OED (pair royal n.) confirms that in this period the phrase is frequently a single word, and it lists variant spellings including "paroyall" and "parreiall". For an apposite example of the phrase in use, see Fuller, The historie of the holy warre, 264, praising the French contribution to the Crusades:
- As France sent the most, so many of most eminent note: She sheweth for the game no worse cards then a pair royall of Kings; Lewis the Young, Philip Augustus, and Saint Lewis; besides Philip the Bold his sonne, who went half-way to Tunis.
"Pair royal" is the correct reading of the title, and whatever subject this lost play was on, it celebrated three princes working together.
This play was registered along with two other lost plays, Charles, Duke of Bourbon
and England’s First Happiness, or The Life of St. Austin. John Nicholson was not a well-known printer of plays. The only extant play he printed was "J.D."'s The Knave in Grain… acted at the Fortune (1640). Is this a tenuous indication of the possible theatrical provenance of these three lost, anonymous plays?
Works Cited
- Fuller, Thomas. The historie of the holy warre. Cambridge: Thomas Buck, 1639.
Site created and maintained by Matthew Steggle 10 December 2009.