Fool Without Book, The: Difference between revisions
David Nicol (talk | contribs) (New entry) |
m (minor spacing/formatting) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:A Knaue in Print, or One for another" | :A Knaue in Print, or One for another" | ||
([http://www.archive.org/stream/1913transcriptof01statuoft#page/n7/mode/2up Arber II], 1:429; Greg, ''BEPD'', 1:61; Bentley, 5:1022). | ([http://www.archive.org/stream/1913transcriptof01statuoft#page/n7/mode/2up Arber II], 1:429; Greg, ''BEPD'', 1:61; Bentley, 5:1022). | ||
<br><br> | |||
===The Burn transcript of Herbert's Office-Book=== | ===The Burn transcript of Herbert's Office-Book=== | ||
The Office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, survives only in various partial transcripts. In 1996, N. W. Bawcutt published new records deriving from a hitherto overlooked transcript, made by the nineteenth-century scholar Jacob Henry Burn, ''Collections Toward Forming a History of the Now Obsolete Master of the Revels''. These records include the following undated note: | The Office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, survives only in various partial transcripts. In 1996, N. W. Bawcutt published new records deriving from a hitherto overlooked transcript, made by the nineteenth-century scholar Jacob Henry Burn, ''Collections Toward Forming a History of the Now Obsolete Master of the Revels''. These records include the following undated note: | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
(Bawcutt, ''Control and Censorship'', entry 436.) | (Bawcutt, ''Control and Censorship'', entry 436.) | ||
<br><br><br> | |||
==Theatrical Provenance== | ==Theatrical Provenance== | ||
Herbert's record indicates that the play was written for Prince Charles's (I) Company. | Herbert's record indicates that the play was written for Prince Charles's (I) Company. | ||
<br><br><br> | |||
==Date== | ==Date== | ||
The Stationers' Register entry offers no clues as to the date, and Herbert's record of the play is undated. However, since Herbert became Master of the Revels in 1623, and the Prince's Men broke up in 1625, and Rowley died in 1626, Bawcutt suggests that the play "probably dates from 1623 or 1624". | The Stationers' Register entry offers no clues as to the date, and Herbert's record of the play is undated. However, since Herbert became Master of the Revels in 1623, and the Prince's Men broke up in 1625, and Rowley died in 1626, Bawcutt suggests that the play "probably dates from 1623 or 1624". | ||
<br><br><br> | |||
==Probable Genre(s)== | ==Probable Genre(s)== | ||
Comedy. | Comedy. | ||
<br><br><br> | |||
==Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues== | ==Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues== | ||
None known. | None known. | ||
<br><br><br> | |||
==References to the Play== | ==References to the Play== | ||
None known. | None known. | ||
<br><br><br> | |||
==Critical Commentary== | ==Critical Commentary== | ||
None known. | None known. | ||
<br><br><br> | |||
==For What It's Worth== | ==For What It's Worth== | ||
The phrase "without book" refers to a lack of studying (see ''OED'', book, ''n.'', 15). A "fool without book" is presumably either a natural fool (who does not need to study to achieve folly), or a person who has studied hard to become a fool (and hence no longer needs the book), or else a person who has inadvisedly tried to become a fool without studying first. It may be worth noting that Rowley's subplot for ''The Changeling'' (1622) features two characters who try to pass for fools within a madhouse, and whose impersonations ultimately fail to convince. | The phrase "without book" refers to a lack of studying (see ''OED'', book, ''n.'', 15). A "fool without book" is presumably either a natural fool (who does not need to study to achieve folly), or a person who has studied hard to become a fool (and hence no longer needs the book), or else a person who has inadvisedly tried to become a fool without studying first. It may be worth noting that Rowley's subplot for ''The Changeling'' (1622) features two characters who try to pass for fools within a madhouse, and whose impersonations ultimately fail to convince. | ||
<br><br><br> | |||
==Works Cited== | |||
[[category:example]] | |||
Site created and maintained by [[David Nicol]], Dalhousie University; updated 15 July 2010. | Site created and maintained by [[David Nicol]], Dalhousie University; updated 15 July 2010. | ||
[[category:all]] | [[category:all]] | ||
Revision as of 02:46, 24 July 2010
Historical Records
Stationers' Register
From a long list of plays entered by Humphrey Moseley on 9 September, 1653:
- "The Foole without Booke
- } by Wm: Rowley
- A Knaue in Print, or One for another"
(Arber II, 1:429; Greg, BEPD, 1:61; Bentley, 5:1022).
The Burn transcript of Herbert's Office-Book
The Office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, survives only in various partial transcripts. In 1996, N. W. Bawcutt published new records deriving from a hitherto overlooked transcript, made by the nineteenth-century scholar Jacob Henry Burn, Collections Toward Forming a History of the Now Obsolete Master of the Revels. These records include the following undated note:
- "Rowley, Foole without Booke; full of faults, and must be Corrected, if allowed 1li. For the Prince's Company."
(Bawcutt, Control and Censorship, entry 436.)
Theatrical Provenance
Herbert's record indicates that the play was written for Prince Charles's (I) Company.
Date
The Stationers' Register entry offers no clues as to the date, and Herbert's record of the play is undated. However, since Herbert became Master of the Revels in 1623, and the Prince's Men broke up in 1625, and Rowley died in 1626, Bawcutt suggests that the play "probably dates from 1623 or 1624".
Probable Genre(s)
Comedy.
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
None known.
References to the Play
None known.
Critical Commentary
None known.
For What It's Worth
The phrase "without book" refers to a lack of studying (see OED, book, n., 15). A "fool without book" is presumably either a natural fool (who does not need to study to achieve folly), or a person who has studied hard to become a fool (and hence no longer needs the book), or else a person who has inadvisedly tried to become a fool without studying first. It may be worth noting that Rowley's subplot for The Changeling (1622) features two characters who try to pass for fools within a madhouse, and whose impersonations ultimately fail to convince.
Works Cited
Site created and maintained by David Nicol, Dalhousie University; updated 15 July 2010.