Such poor neglected books!

[mirrorshard]

I've been collecting copies of a particular Shakespeare set, one of the early mass-market paperback editions -


EACH NUMBER SOLD SEPARATELY
AT THE RATE OF M0,30

THE PLAYS
OF
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
IN
37 PARTS.

---

No. 21.
KING HENRY VIII.

LEIPZIG
BERNHARD TAUCHNITZ
1868.


The problem is, this one had uncut pages. The poor thing's been around so long, and nobody's wanted to read it... that really appals me. It may not be the most popular of plays, but still, it deserves a careful cherishing. And got it, taking full advantage of the lovely acoustics in my kitchen. Though the fact that its first experience had to involve a sharp knife is possibly not ideal.

Comments

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

Oh, that is rather sad! Though it's neat that you were the first person to read it.

Also, Henry VIII does seem to have been a popular play in the late 19th century (as this page (http://shakespeare.emory.edu/playdisplay.cfm?playid=8) suggests). Perhaps less so on paper, though.

Nice to meet you, btw. :)

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

And likewise to meet you!

It's interesting so far, but I'm only halfway through Act 1, so there's not all that much I can say about it yet. The Prologue is classic, and I hope my next-door neighbours appreciated being forcibly enculturated - I think I forgot and used full performance volume a few times.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

It's...hrm. It's not really a favorite play of mine, but there is some brilliant stuff in it. Katherine has some really good material, and Wolsey's last scene is magnificent.

(Also, I do sort of love that it's indebted to George Cavendish's Life of Wolsey, in places; I wrote about that text a couple of years ago and am very fond of it [cf. icon].)

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

I went to see quite a few plays in the Wolsey Theatre, in Ipswich, when I lived near there. They had quite a few ushers, as it happened.

Thinking about it, I can sort of see why the story was so popular in that era, given the vicious anti-Catholic bias.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

Yeah -- though that's complicated really, as you'll see in the portrayal of Katherine.

George Cavendish was gentleman-usher to Wolsey, and his biography of Wolsey was written to defend his old boss against the rather bad reputation he'd gotten (it was a Marian text, which is why he could do this; some very late editions apparently have a "now that Elizabeth is going to be queen we're totally boned" coda, but I've never seen it). It's fascinating, because there is this huge focus on all of the people and all of the stuff surrounding Wolsey -- very much a retainer's-eye view of history, and that has interesting historiographical implications. (Also we learn all about the contents of Wolsey's chamberpot during his final illness. The paper I wrote on this text, which also discussed More's Richard III, took as its jumping-off point the fact that both of these texts have privy scenes at key points in the narrative.)

[ceirseach.livejournal.com]

What text is it based on? Quarto or Folio? Does it say? (And is there a Quarto version of that play, given we haven't ascertained which play it is yet? ;))

Feel like making a digital image of the first few pages and putting them up? I'd be interested to see how they did it.

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

It's "From the text of the Rev. Alexander Dyce's Second Edition". My replica-replica Fourth Folio has it in, under the title of "The famous History of the Life of King Henry the 8".

I'd be delighted to make a digital image, but I don't have the equipment; I may be able to arrange some, and if so I shall.

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

Henry VIII first appears in print in the 1623 First Folio. Which is why it's always been accepted as part of the canon despite its probable status as Shakespeare/Fletcher joint; their other collaboration, The Two Noble Kinsmen, is not in the Folio and has only fairly recently appeared in complete editions.

[ceirseach.livejournal.com]

Um... Henry VIII? There isn't a Henry VIII...? He couldnt''ve written one because it was too close to home, that Henry being the father of Elizabeth. Sure you don't mean the tetralogy of Henry VI?

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

It's right here in front of me, and it's definitely VIII!

Got Cardinal Wolsey, Anne Bullen, Queen Katharine, and all the others in, too.

[ceirseach.livejournal.com]

.....

That's all I have to say on that.

also. THEY WOULD HAVE KILLED HIM.

*runs off to consult her reliable trusty Norton*

and please - scannage of first few pages?

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

It's a TOTAL hatchet job on Wolsey.

[ceirseach.livejournal.com]

I shall consult Norton as soon as I can be betohered getting out of bed.

(Still don't BELIEVE you.)

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

Ha. I look forward to being proved RIGHT, and will quite happily bet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_%28play%29) on (http://absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/bibliography/bibliography.htm) its (http://www.william-shakespeare.info/shakespeare-play-king-henry-viii.htm) existence (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1136).

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

It was written circa 1613, ten years after Elizabeth died, and by then depictions of the Tudors in history plays were fairly common. Also, it only goes through the first two queens, so most of Henry's nastier moments aren't in it (indeed, there are some strong nostalgia bits here and there).