Galfrido and Bernardo: Difference between revisions
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
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:Henslowe]][[category:Ghost lost plays]] | [[category:all]][[category:Matthew Steggle]][[category:forgery]][[category:Philip Henslowe]][[category:Ghost lost plays]] | ||
Revision as of 05:25, 18 May 2015
Anon. (falsely attributed to 1593)
NB This record is a hoax. It is listed here simply to document that it is indeed inauthentic.
Historical Records
An interpolated entry in the manuscript of Henslowe's Diary for 1593:
- 18 of maye 1595… Rd at galfrido & Bernardo… xxxis. (Foakes ed., Diary, 28.)
The entry was not reported by Malone, first appearing in print in J. P. Collier's edition of the Diary. It was recognized as Collier's own forgery by subsequent editors including Greg and Foakes.
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 http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/origins/DisplayServlet?id=drout7241.5&type=print.
References to the Play
None
Critical Commentary
None
For What It's Worth
It's not.
Works Cited
Site created and maintained by Matthew Steggle, Sheffield Hallam University; updated 18 May 2015.