Galfrido and Bernardo: Difference between revisions
m (added HADP image) |
|||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Falsely attributed to [[Anon.]] (falsely attributed to [[1595]]) | Falsely attributed to [[Anon.]] (falsely attributed to [[1595]]) | ||
NB This | NB This purported lost play is a '''hoax'''. It is listed here simply to document that it is indeed inauthentic. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
:18 of maye 1595… Rd at galfrido & Bernardo… xxxi<sup>s</sup>. (Foakes ed., ''Diary'', 28.) | :18 of maye 1595… Rd at galfrido & Bernardo… xxxi<sup>s</sup>. (Foakes ed., ''Diary'', 28.)<br> | ||
<!--newThumb-->[[Image:MS_VII_f11v_detail.jpg|250px]]<!--/newThumb--><br> | |||
MS VII, f11v (detail), © David Cooper and reproduced with kind permission of the Governors of Dulwich College. No further reproduction permitted.<br>[[category:Dulwich College]] | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
[ | The entry was not reported by [[WorksCited|Malone]], since it was not actually in the ''Diary'' when Malone saw it. It was written in by the forger J. P. [[WorksCited|Collier]], who then reported it in his own edition of the ''Diary''. It was recognized as Collier's own forgery within his own lifetime, and is categorized as such by the subsequent editors of the ''Diary'', [[WorksCited|Greg I. pp. xxxviii; 22]]; and [[WorksCited|Foakes, p. 28 n6]]. | ||
<br> | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
==Theatrical Provenance== | ==Theatrical Provenance== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 46: | ||
==Critical Commentary== | ==Critical Commentary== | ||
This forgery was caught fairly early on, but it had already made it into some reference works besides Collier's own edition - for instance, J. O. Halliwell-Phillips's ''Dictionary of Old English Plays'' (1860), 105-6. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DZEUAAAAQAAJ&q=galfrido#v=snippet&q=galfrido&f=false GoogleBooks] | This forgery was caught fairly early on, but it had already made it into some reference works besides Collier's own edition - for instance, J. O. Halliwell-Phillips's ''Dictionary of Old English Plays'' (1860), 105-6. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DZEUAAAAQAAJ&q=galfrido#v=snippet&q=galfrido&f=false GoogleBooks]<br><br> | ||
<br><br> | |||
As late as 1904 it was still causing W. W. Greg needless suspicion about the genuineness of the 1570 poem itself ( | As late as 1904 it was still causing W. W. [[WorksCited|Greg I]] needless suspicion about the genuineness of the 1570 poem itself (xxxvi-xxxviii). The forgery is still occasionally resurrected by new discussions of Henslowe which rely, unwarily, on Collier's edition. <br><br> | ||
<br><br> | |||
The fullest discussion is in Freeman and Freeman, 2.367-8. | The fullest discussion is in Freeman and Freeman, 2.367-8. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
==For What It's Worth== | ==For What It's Worth== | ||
It's not. | It's not. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 61: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
==Works Cited== | ==Works Cited== | ||
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Freeman, Arthur and Janet Ing Freeman. ''John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century''. 2 vols. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004.</div> | <div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Freeman, Arthur and Janet Ing Freeman. ''John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century''. 2 vols. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004.</div> | ||
| Line 73: | Line 68: | ||
Site created and maintained by [[Matthew Steggle]], Sheffield Hallam University; updated 18 May 2015. | Site created and maintained by [[Matthew Steggle]], Sheffield Hallam University; updated 18 May 2015. | ||
[[category:all]][[category:Matthew Steggle]][[category:forgery]][[category:Philip Henslowe]][[category:Ghost lost plays]] | [[category:all]][[category:Matthew Steggle]][[category:forgery]][[category:Philip Henslowe]][[category:Ghost lost plays]] | ||
[[category:John Payne Collier]][[category:Update]] | |||
Latest revision as of 13:02, 9 March 2021
Falsely attributed to Anon. (falsely attributed to 1595)
NB This purported lost play is a hoax. It is listed here simply to document that it is indeed inauthentic.
Historical Records
An interpolated entry at the bottom of one of the pages of the manuscript of Henslowe's Diary:
- 18 of maye 1595… Rd at galfrido & Bernardo… xxxis. (Foakes ed., Diary, 28.)
MS VII, f11v (detail), © David Cooper and reproduced with kind permission of the Governors of Dulwich College. No further reproduction permitted.
The entry was not reported by Malone, since it was not actually in the Diary when Malone saw it. It was written in by the forger J. P. Collier, who then reported it in his own edition of the Diary. It was recognized as Collier's own forgery within his own lifetime, and is categorized as such by the subsequent editors of the Diary, Greg I. pp. xxxviii; 22; and Foakes, p. 28 n6.
Theatrical Provenance
n/a
Probable Genre(s)
n/a
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
Collier clearly intended it to look like an adaptation of the 1570 poem Galfrido and Bernardo, discussed by Mike Pincombe here.
References to the Play
None
Critical Commentary
This forgery was caught fairly early on, but it had already made it into some reference works besides Collier's own edition - for instance, J. O. Halliwell-Phillips's Dictionary of Old English Plays (1860), 105-6. GoogleBooks
As late as 1904 it was still causing W. W. Greg I needless suspicion about the genuineness of the 1570 poem itself (xxxvi-xxxviii). The forgery is still occasionally resurrected by new discussions of Henslowe which rely, unwarily, on Collier's edition.
The fullest discussion is in Freeman and Freeman, 2.367-8.
For What It's Worth
It's not.
Works Cited
Site created and maintained by Matthew Steggle, Sheffield Hallam University; updated 18 May 2015.