Works cited
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2016
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shakespeare and Manuscript DramaCanon, Collaboration and Text, pp. 292 - 306Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Alexander, Peter 1929. Shakespeare’s ‘Henry VI’ and ‘Richard III’. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Bald, R. C. 1931. ‘Addition III of Sir Thomas More’, Review of English Studies 7: 67–9Google Scholar
Bald, R. C. 1949. ‘The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore and Its Problems’, Shakespeare Survey 2: 44–61Google Scholar
Barker, Richard Hindry 1958. Thomas Middleton. New York: Columbia University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskervill, Charles Read 1932. ‘A Prompt-Copy of A Looking Glass for London and England’, Modern Philology 30: 29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bate, Jonathan, and Rasmussen, Eric (eds.) 2007. William Shakespeare: Complete Works. New York: Random HouseGoogle Scholar
Bate, Jonathan, and Rasmussen, Eric (eds.) 2013. William Shakespeare and Others: Collaborative Plays. Houndmills: Palgrave MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayfield, M. A. 1919. ‘Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of “Sir Thomas More”’, Times Literary Supplement June 5: 312Google Scholar
Bayfield, M. A. 1921a. ‘Shakespeare’s Handwriting’, Times Literary Supplement June 30: 418Google Scholar
Bayfield, M. A. 1921b. ‘Shakespeare’s Handwriting’, Times Literary Supplement August 18: 533Google Scholar
Bennington, Geoffrey 1999. ‘Inter’, in McQuillan, Martin, Macdonald, Graeme, Purves, Robin, and Thomson, Stephen (eds.), Post-Theory: New Directions in Criticism. Edinburgh University Press, pp. 103–19Google Scholar
Bentley, Gerald Eades 1941–68. The Jacobean and Caroline Stage. 7 vols. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Gerald Eades 1971. The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s Time 1590–1642. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Blayney, Peter W. M. 1972. ‘The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore Re-examined’, Studies in Philology 69: 167–91Google Scholar
Boswell, Eleanore (ed.) 1927. Edmond Ironside or War Hath Made All Friends. Malone Society Reprint. London: Malone Society (1928)Google Scholar
Bowers, Fredson 1955. On Editing Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Dramatists. [Philadelphia]: Published for the Philip H. and A. S. W. Rosenbach Foundation by the University of Pennsylvania LibraryGoogle Scholar
Bradley, David 1992. From Text to Performance in the Elizabethan Theatre: Preparing the Play for the Stage. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Braumuller, A. R. (ed.) 1989. King John. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Briggs, Julia 1998. ‘“The Lady Vanishes”: Problems of Authorship and Editing in the Middleton Canon’, in Hill, W. Speed (ed.), New Ways of Looking at Old Texts, II: Papers of the Renaissance English Text Society, 1992–1996. Tempe, AZ: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies in conjunction with Renaissance English Text Society, pp. 109–20Google Scholar
Briggs, Julia (ed.) 2007a. The Lady’s Tragedy, in Taylor, Gary and Lavagnino, John (gen eds.), Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 833–906Google Scholar
Briggs, Julia (ed.) 2007b. The Lady’s Tragedy, in Taylor, Gary and Lavagnino, John (gen eds.), Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture: A Companion to the Collected Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 619–26Google Scholar
Brooke, C. F. Tucker (ed.) 1908. The Shakespeare Apocrypha: Being a Collection of Fourteen Plays Which Have Been Ascribed to Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Douglas A. 2000. From Playhouse to Printing House: Drama and Authorship in Early Modern England. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Brown, Arthur (ed.) 1953. The Captives by Thomas Heywood. Malone Society Reprint. London: Malone SocietyGoogle Scholar
Bullen, A. H. (ed.) 1882–9. A Collection of Old English Plays in Four Volumes. 4 vols. Rpt. New York: Blom, 1964Google Scholar
Byrne, Muriel St Clare 1920. ‘Anthony Munday and His Books’, The Library 4th ser. 1: 225–56Google Scholar
Byrne, Muriel St Clare 1923a. ‘Anthony Munday’s Spelling as a Literary Clue’, The Library 4th ser. 4: 9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, Muriel St Clare 1932. ‘Bibliographical Clues in Collaborate Plays’, The Library 4th ser. 13: 21–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, Muriel St Clare (ed.) 1923b. John a Kent and John a Cumber. Malone Society Reprint. London: Malone SocietyGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Nicole 2001. ‘Material Adventures: The Production and Reproduction of Early Modern Dramatic Manuscripts’, PhD thesis, University of Western OntarioGoogle Scholar
Carroll, D. Allen (ed.) 1994. Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit Bought with a Million of Repentance (1592). Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and StudiesGoogle Scholar
Chambers, E. K. 1930. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. 2 vols. London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R. W. 1923. ‘The Expression of Ideas – Particularly Political Ideas – in the Three Pages, and in Shakespeare’, in Pollard (ed.), pp. 142–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R. W. 1939. Man’s Unconquerable Mind: Studies of English Writers, from Bede to A. E. Housman and W. R. Ker. London: Jonathan CapeGoogle Scholar
Chettle, Henry 1592. Kind-Harts Dreame. Conteyning Fiue Apparitions, with their Inuectiues against Abuses Raigning. London: for William WrightGoogle Scholar
Chettle, Henry 1631. The Tragedy of Hoffman. Or A Revenge for a Father. London: I[ohn] N[orton] for Hugh PerryGoogle Scholar
Chillington, Carol A. 1980. ‘Playwrights at Work: Henslowe’s, Not Shakespeare’s Book of Sir Thomas More’, English Literary Renaissance 10: 439–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clare, Janet 1999. ‘Art made tongue-tied by authority’: Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship, 2nd edn. Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Walter 2008. ‘Sir Thomas More: Passages Attributed to Shakespeare’, in Greenblatt et al. (eds.), pp. 2029–32Google Scholar
Collier, John Payne (ed.) 1851. John a Kent and John a Cumber: A Comedy. Shakespeare Society of London Publications, No. 47. Nendeln: Kraus Reprint, 1966Google Scholar
Collins, D. C. 1934. ‘On the Date of Sir Thomas More’, Review of English Studies 10: 401–11Google Scholar
Cox, John D., and Kastan, David Scott 1997a. ‘Introduction’, in Cox and Kastan (eds.), pp. 1–5Google Scholar
Cox, John D., and Kastan, David Scott (eds.) 1997b. A New History of Early English Drama. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
Craig, Hugh, and Kinney, Arthur F. 2009a. ‘Introduction’, in Craig and Kinney (eds.), pp. 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Hugh, and Kinney, Arthur F. (eds.) 2009b. Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David 2008. ‘Think on my Words’: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGrazia, Margreta 1988. ‘The Essential Shakespeare and the Material Book’, Textual Practice 2: 69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 1994. Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International, Kamuf, Peggy (trans.) London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 1997. Of Grammatology, Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (trans.), corr. ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University PressGoogle Scholar
Dessen, Alan C., and Thomson, Leslie 1999. A Dictionary of Stage Directions in English Drama, 1580–1642. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Deutschberger, Paul 1943. ‘The Sir Thomas Moore Problem Reconsidered’, Shakespeare Association Bulletin 18: 75–91, 99–108, 156–67Google Scholar
Dutton, Richard 1991. Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: University of Iowa PressGoogle Scholar
Downs, Gerald 2007. ‘A Question (not) to be Askt: Is Hand D a Copy’, Shakespeare Yearbook 16: 241–66Google Scholar
Dyce, Alexander (ed.) 1844. Sir Thomas More: A Play. London: Printed for the Shakespeare SocietyGoogle Scholar
Egan, Gabriel 2011. ‘Precision, Consistency, and Completeness in Early-Modern Playbook Manuscripts: The Evidence from Thomas of Woodstock and John a Kent and John a Cumber’, The Library 7th ser. 12: 376–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliott, Ward E. Y., and Valenza, Robert J. 2010. ‘Two Tough Nuts to Crack: Did Shakespeare Write the ‘Shakespeare’ Portions of Sir Thomas More and Edward III? Part I’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 25: 67–84; ‘Part II: Conclusion’: 165–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erne, Lukas, and Kidnie, Margaret Jane (eds.) 2004. Textual Performances: The Modern Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Drama. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. Blakemore (ed.) 1997. The Riverside Shakespeare. 1974; 2nd edn. Boston: Houghton MifflinGoogle Scholar
Foakes, R. A. (ed.) 1997. King Lear. The Arden Shakespeare (Third Series). Walton-on-Thames, Surrey: Thomas NelsonGoogle Scholar
Forker, Charles R. 2010. ‘The Troublesome Reign, Richard II, and the Date of King John: A Study in Intertextuality’, Shakespeare Survey 63: 127–48Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel 1991. ‘What is an Author?’ Harari, Josue V. (trans.), in Rabinow, Paul (ed.), The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 101–20Google Scholar
Gabrieli, Vittorio, and Melchiori, Giorgio (eds.) 1990. Sir Thomas More. The Revels Plays. Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
Garber, Marjorie 1987. Shakespeare’s Ghost Writers: Literature as Uncanny Causality. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar
Golding, S. R. 1928. ‘Robert Wilson and Sir Thomas More’, Notes and Queries 154: 237–9, 259–62Google Scholar
Gossett, Suzanne 2004. ‘Marston, Collaboration, and Eastward Hoe’, Renaissance Drama new ser. 33: 181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen, Cohen, Walter, Howard, Jean E., and Maus, Katharine Eisaman (eds.) 2008. The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition. 1997; 2nd edn. New York: W. W. Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1903. ‘The Bibliographical History of the First Folio’, The Library 2nd ser. 4: 258–85Google Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1913. ‘Autograph Plays by Anthony Munday’, Modern Language Review 8: 89–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1922. Two Elizabethan Stage Abridgements: The Battle of Alcazar and Orlando Furioso. Oxford: Malone Society. Rpt. 1964Google Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1923b. ‘Massinger’s Autograph Corrections in “The Duke of Milan”, 1623’, The Library 4th ser. 4: 207–18Google Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1927. ‘Shakespeare’s Hand Once More’, Times Literary Supplement November 24 and December 1: 871 and 908Google Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1931. Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses: Stage Plots, Actors’ Parts, Prompt Books. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1942. The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare: A Survey of the Foundations of the Text. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1955. The Shakespeare First Folio: Its Bibliographical and Textual History. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1956. Review of ‘On Editing Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Dramatists. By Fredson Bowers’, Shakespeare Quarterly 7: 101–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greg, W. W. 1966. ‘What Is Bibliography?’ in Maxwell, J. C. (ed.), W. W. Greg: Collected Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 75–88 (first published 1914)Google Scholar
Greg, W. W. (ed.) 1907. Henslowe Papers, Being Documents Supplementary to Henslowe’s Diary. London: A. H. BullenGoogle Scholar
Greg, W. W. (ed.) 1909. The Second Maiden’s Tragedy 1611. Malone Society Reprint. London: Malone Society (1910)Google Scholar
Greg, W. W. (ed.) 1911. The Book of Sir Thomas More. Malone Society Reprint. Oxford: Malone Society. Rpt. 1961, 1991Google Scholar
Grigely, Joseph 1995. Textualterity: Art, Theory, and Textual Criticism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
Gurr, Andrew 1999. ‘Maximal and Minimal Texts: Shakespeare v. the Globe’, Shakespeare Survey 52: 68–87Google Scholar
Gurr, Andrew, and Ichikawa, Mariko 2000. Staging in Shakespeare’s Theatres. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Antony 1992. ‘Encounters of the Third Kind in Stage-Directions in Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama’, Studies in Philology 89: 71–99Google Scholar
Hammond, Antony 1993. ‘The Noisy Comma: Searching for the Signal in Renaissance Dramatic Texts’, in McLeod, Randall (ed.), Crisis in Editing: Texts of the English Renaissance. New York: AMS Press, pp. 203–49Google Scholar
Hammond, Brean (ed.) 2010. Double Falsehood. The Arden Shakespeare (Third Series). London: A. & C. BlackGoogle Scholar
Harbage, Alfred 1989. Annals of English Drama, 975–1700, revised by Schoenbaum, S.; 3rd edn. revised by Wagonheim, Sylvia Stoler. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. B. 1925. ‘The Date of Sir Thomas More’, Review of English Studies 1: 337–9Google Scholar
Hays, Michael L. 1975. ‘Shakespeare’s Hand in Sir Thomas More: Some Aspects of the Paleographic Argument’, Shakespeare Studies 8: 241–53Google Scholar
Herbert, J. A. 1917. Review of Sir Edward Maunde Thompson’s Shakespeare’s Handwriting, The Library 3rd ser. 8: 97–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood, Thomas 1640. The Exemplary Lives and Memorable Acts of Nine the Most Worthy Women of the World. London: Printed by Tho[mas] Cotes for Richard RoystonGoogle Scholar
Hirrel, Michael J. 2010. ‘Duration of Performance and Lengths of Plays: How Shall We Beguile the Lazy Time?’ Shakespeare Quarterly 61: 159–82Google Scholar
Honigmann, E. A. J. 1983. ‘John a Kent and Marprelate’, The Yearbook of English Studies 13: 288–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honigmann, E. A. J. 1996. The Texts of ‘Othello’ and Shakespearian Revision. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Honigmann, E. A. J. 2004. ‘The New Bibliography and Its Critics’, in Erne and Kidnie (eds.), pp. 77–93Google Scholar
Honigmann, E. A. J. 2005. ‘Shakespeare’s Deletions and False Starts’, Review of English Studies new ser. 56: 37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Hill, T. H. 1983. ‘Marginal Markings: The Censor and the Editing of Four English Promptbooks’, Studies in Bibliography 36: 168–77Google Scholar
Howard-Hill, T. H. 1988. ‘Crane’s 1619 “Promptbook” of Barnavelt and Theatrical Processes’, Modern Philology 86: 146–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Hill, T. H. (ed.) 1989. Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More: Essays on the Play and Its Shakespearian Interest. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Huber, R. A. 1961. ‘On Looking over Shakespeare’s “Secraterie”’, in Jackson, B. A. W. (ed.), Stratford Papers on Shakespeare. Toronto: W. J. Gage, pp. 52–77Google Scholar
Ichikawa, Mariko 2002. Shakespearean Entrances. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ichikawa, Mariko 2005. ‘“Maluolio within”: Acting on the Threshold between Onstage and Offstage Spaces’, Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 18: 123–45Google Scholar
Ioppolo, Grace 2002. ‘“The Foule Sheet and ye Fayr”: Henslowe, Daborne, Heywood and the Nature of Foul-Paper and Fair-Copy Dramatic Manuscripts’, English Manuscript Studies 1100–1700 11: 132–53Google Scholar
Ioppolo, Grace 2006. Dramatists and Their Manuscripts in the Age of Shakespeare, Jonson, Middleton and Heywood: Authorship, Authority and the Playhouse. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 1978. ‘Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Shakespeare’s Addition to “Sir Thomas More”’, Notes and Queries 223: 154–6Google Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 1979. Studies in Attribution: Middleton and Shakespeare. Salzburg: Institut für Anglistik und AmerikanistikGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 1985. ‘Anthony Munday and the Play of Thomas More’, Moreana 22: 83–4Google Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 1990. ‘The Additions to “The Second Maiden’s Tragedy”: Shakespeare or Middleton?’ Shakespeare Quarterly 41: 402–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 2003. Defining Shakespeare: ‘Pericles’ as Test Case. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 2006a. ‘The Date and Authorship of Hand D’s Contribution to Sir Thomas More: Evidence from “Literature Online”’, Shakespeare Survey 59: 69–78Google Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 2006b. ‘Shakespeare and the Quarrel Scene in Arden of Faversham’, Shakespeare Quarterly 57: 249–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 2007a. ‘A New Chronological Indicator for Shakespeare’s Plays and for Hand D of Sir Thomas More’, Notes and Queries 252: 304–7Google Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 2007b. ‘Is “Hand D” of Sir Thomas More Shakespeare’s? Thomas Bayes and the Elliott-Valenza Authorship Tests’, Early Modern Literary Studies 12.3: I: 1–36 (http://purl.oclc.org/emls)Google Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 2011. ‘Deciphering a Date and Determining a Date: Anthony Munday’s John a Kent and John a Cumber and the Original Version of Sir Thomas More’, Early Modern Literary Studies 15.3: I: 1–24 (http://purl.oclc.org/emls)Google Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 2014. Determining the Shakespeare Canon: Arden of Faversham and A Lover’s Complaint. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, Henry D. (ed.) 1976. The Escapes of Jupiter by Thomas Heywood. Malone Society Reprint. London: Malone Society (1978)Google Scholar
Jenkins, Harold 1961. ‘Supplement to the Introduction’, in Greg, W. W. (ed.), The Book of Sir Thomas More. Malone Society Reprint. London: Malone SocietyGoogle Scholar
Jenkinson, Hilary 1922. ‘Elizabethan Handwriting: A Preliminary Sketch’, The Library 4th ser. 3: 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jowett, John 1989. ‘Henry Chettle and the Original Text of Sir Thomas More’, in Howard-Hill (ed.), pp. 131–49Google Scholar
Jowett, John 2006. ‘Editing Shakespeare’s Plays in the Twentieth Century’, Shakespeare Survey 59: 1–19Google Scholar
Jowett, John 2012. ‘A Collaboration: Shakespeare and Hand C in Sir Thomas More’, Shakespeare Survey 65: 255–68Google Scholar
Jowett, John (ed.) 2011. Sir Thomas More. The Arden Shakespeare (Third Series). London: A. & C. BlackGoogle Scholar
Judson, Alexander Corbin (ed.) 1921. The Captives; or, The Lost Recovered. New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
Kinney, Arthur F. 1999. ‘Text, Context, and Authorship of The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore’, in King, Sigrid (ed.), Pilgrimage for Love: Essays in Early Modern Literature in Honor of Josephine A. Roberts. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, pp. 133–60Google Scholar
Lake, David J. 1975. The Canon of Thomas Middleton’s Plays: Internal Evidence for the Major Problems of Authorship. London: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Lake, David J. 1977. ‘The Date of the “Sir Thomas More” Additions by Dekker and Shakespeare’, Notes and Queries 222: 114–16Google Scholar
Lancashire, Anne (ed.) 1978. The Second Maiden’s Tragedy. Revels Plays. Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
Law, Robert Adger 1931. ‘Is Heywood’s Hand in ‘Sir Thomas More?’ Studies in English 11: 24–31Google Scholar
Lea, K. M. (ed.) 1928. The Parliament of Love. Malone Society Reprint. London: Malone Society (1929)Google Scholar
Levin, Richard 1963. ‘The Double Plot of The Second Maiden’s Tragedy’, Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 3: 219–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Nina 2007. ‘Citizens’ Games: Differentiating Collaboration and Sir Thomas More’, Shakespeare Quarterly 58: 31–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littledale, H. (ed.) 1921. The Welsh Embassador. Malone Society Reprint. London: Malone SocietyGoogle Scholar
Long, William B. 1985. ‘Stage-Directions: A Misinterpreted Factor in Determining Textual Provenance’, Text 2: 121–37Google Scholar
Long, William B. 1989a. ‘John a Kent and John a Cumber: An Elizabethan Playbook and Its Implications’, in Elton, W. R. and Long, William B. (eds.), Shakespeare and Dramatic Tradition: Essays in Honor of S. F. Johnson. Newark: University of Delaware Press, pp. 125–43Google Scholar
Long, William B. 1989b. ‘The Occasion of The Book of Sir Thomas More’, in Howard-Hill (ed.), pp. 45–56Google Scholar
Long, William B. 1999. ‘“Precious Few”: English Manuscript Playbooks’, in Kastan, David Scott (ed.), A Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 414–33Google Scholar
Love, Harold 2002. Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-François 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Bennington, Geoff and Massumi, Brian (trans.). Manchester University Press. Rpt. 1999Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-François 1988. The Differend: Phrases in Dispute, Van Den Abbeele, Georges (trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey A. 1997a. ‘Playwrighting: Authorship and Collaboration’, in Cox and Kastan (eds.), pp. 357–82Google Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey A. 1997b. Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey A. 2001. ‘More or Less: Editing the Collaborative’, Shakespeare Studies 29: 109–31Google Scholar
McGann, Jerome J. 1983. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. University of Chicago Press. Rpt. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992Google Scholar
McKerrow, Ronald B. 1924. Review of ‘Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More’ A. W. Pollard (ed.), The Library 4th ser. 4: 238–42Google Scholar
McKerrow, Ronald B. 1931. ‘The Elizabethan Printer and Dramatic Manuscripts’, The Library 4th ser. 12: 253–75Google Scholar
McKerrow, Ronald B. 1935. ‘A Suggestion Regarding Shakespeare’s Manuscripts’, Review of English Studies 11: 459–65Google Scholar
McKerrow, Ronald B. 1939. Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare: A Study in Editorial Method. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
McMillin, Scott 1970. ‘The Book of Sir Thomas More: A Theatrical View’, Modern Philology 68: 10–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillin, Scott 1987. The Elizabethan Theatre and The Book of Sir Thomas More. Ithaca: Cornell University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillin, Scott 1999. ‘Professional Playwrighting’, in Kastan, David Scott (ed.), A Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 225–38Google Scholar
McMullan, Gordon 1994. The Politics of Unease in the Plays of John Fletcher. Amherst: University of Massachusetts PressGoogle Scholar
McMullan, Gordon (ed.) 2000. King Henry VIII (All Is True). The Arden Shakespeare (Third Series). London: Thomson LearningGoogle Scholar
Melchiori, Giorgio 1985. ‘Hand D in “Sir Thomas More”: An Essay in Misinterpretation’, Shakespeare Survey 38: 101–14Google Scholar
Melchiori, Giorgio 1986. ‘The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore: A Chronology of Revision’, Shakespeare Quarterly 37: 291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchiori, Giorgio 1987. ‘The Master of the Revels and the Date of the Additions to The Book of Sir Thomas More’, in Fabian, Bernhard and von Rosador, Kurt Tetzeli (eds.), Shakespeare: Text, Language, Criticism. New York: Olms-Weidmann, pp. 164–79Google Scholar
Melchiori, Giorgio 1989. ‘The Book of Sir Thomas More: Dramatic Unity’, in Howard-Hill (ed.), pp. 77–100Google Scholar
Melchiori, Giorgio (ed.) 1998. King Edward III. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Paul (ed.) 1996. Thomas Heywood: Three Marriage Plays. Revels Plays Companion Library. Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
Metz, G. Harold 1982. ‘The Master of the Revels and The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore’, Shakespeare Quarterly 33: 493–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metz, G. Harold 1989. ‘“Voyce and credit”: The Scholars and Sir Thomas More’, in Howard-Hill (ed.), pp. 11–44Google Scholar
Miola, Robert S. 2011. ‘Shakespeare and The Book of Sir Thomas More’, Moreana 48: 9–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowat, Barbara A. 1996. ‘The Problem of Shakespeare’s Text(s)’, Shakespeare Jahrbuch 132: 26–43Google Scholar
Mowat, Barbara A. 2001. ‘The Reproduction of Shakespeare’s Texts’, in de Grazia, Margreta and Wells, Stanley (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Andrew 2007. ‘The Birth of the Editor’, in Murphy, Andrew (ed.), A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosworthy, J. M. 1955. ‘Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More’, Review of English Studies new ser. 6: 12–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosworthy, J. M. 1956. ‘Hand B in Sir Thomas More’, The Library 5th ser. 2: 47–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliphant, E. H. C. 1919. ‘“Sir Thomas More”’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 18: 226–35Google Scholar
Orgel, Stephen 1981. ‘What Is a Text?’, Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama 24: 3–6Google Scholar
Partridge, A. C. 1964. Orthography in Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama: A Study of Colloquial Contractions, Elision, Prosody and Punctuation. London: ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Pennell, Arthur Emmet (ed.) 1980. A Critical Old Spelling Edition of Anthony Munday’s John a Kent and John a Cumber. Renaissance Drama: A Collection of Critical Editions. New York: GarlandGoogle Scholar
Petti, Anthony G. 1977. English Literary Hands from Chaucer to Dryden. London: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Alfred W. 1909. Shakespeare Folios and Quartos: A Study in the Bibliography of Shakespeare’s Plays, 1594–1685. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Alfred W. (ed.) 1923b. Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Alfred W., and Wilson, J. Dover 1920. ‘What Follows If Some of the Good Quarto Editions of Shakespeare’s Plays Were Printed from His Autograph Manuscripts: Summary’, Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 15: 136–9Google Scholar
Proudfoot, Richard 1993. ‘Richard Johnson’s Tom a’ Lincoln Dramatized: A Jacobean Play in British Library MS Add. 61745’, in Hill, W. Speed (ed.), New Ways of Looking at Old Texts: Papers of the Renaissance English Text Society, 1985–1991. Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, pp. 75–101Google Scholar
Ramsey, Paul 1976. ‘Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More Revisited: or, A Mounty on the Trail’, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 70: 333–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Eric 1989. ‘Shakespeare’s Hand in “The Second Maiden’s Tragedy”’, Shakespeare Quarterly 40: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Eric 1990. ‘Reply to MacD. P. Jackson’, Shakespeare Quarterly 41: 406–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Eric 1991. ‘Setting Down What the Clown Spoke: Improvisation, Hand B, and The Book of Sir Thomas More’, The Library 6th ser. 13: 126–36Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Eric 2011. ‘Collaboration: The Determination of Authorship’, in Gossett (ed.), pp. 229–34Google Scholar
Rhoads, Rebecca G. (ed.) 1930. The Two Noble Ladies. Malone Society Reprint. London: Malone SocietyGoogle Scholar
Rowe, Nicholas (ed.) 1709. The Works of Mr. William Shakespear; in Six Volumes, Adorn’d with Cuts. Revis’d and Corrected, with an Account of the Life and Writings of the Author. 6 vols. or 9 vols. London: Jacob TonsonGoogle Scholar
Rowland, Richard 1995. ‘The Captives: Thomas Heywood’s “Whole Monopoly off Mischeiff”’, Modern Language Review 90: 585–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenbaum, S. 1955. Middleton’s Tragedies: A Critical Study. New York: Columbia University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenbaum, S. 1966. Internal Evidence and Elizabethan Dramatic Authorship: An Essay in Literary History and Method. London: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Schücking, Levin L. 1925. ‘Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More’, Review of English Studies I: 40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillingsburg, Peter L. 1996. Scholarly Editing in the Computer Age: Theory and Practice, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Rpt. 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Richard 1871. ‘Are There Any Extant MSS. in Shakespeare’s Handwriting?’, Notes and Queries 4th ser. 8: 1–3Google Scholar
Sisson, Charles Jasper (ed.) 1953. William Shakespeare: The Complete Works. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
Sinfield, Alan 1992. Faultlines: Cultural Materialism and the Politics of Dissident Reading. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Bruce R. 1988. Ancient Scripts and Modern Experience on the English Stage 1500–1700. Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Irwin 1967. ‘Their Exits and Reentrances’, Shakespeare Quarterly 18: 7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spedding, James 1872. ‘Shakespeare’s Handwriting’, Notes and Queries 4th ser. 10: 227–8Google Scholar
Spevack, Marvin 1968–94. A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. 9 vols. Hildesheim: Georg OlmsGoogle Scholar
Stallybrass, Peter 1992. ‘Shakespeare, the Individual, and the Text’, in Grossberg, Lawrence, Nelson, Cary, and Treichler, Paula A. (eds.), Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 593–612Google Scholar
Stern, Tiffany 2001. ‘Behind the Arras: The Prompter’s Place in the Shakespearean Theatre’, Theatre Notebook 55: 110–18Google Scholar
Stern, Tiffany 2009. Documents of Performance in Early Modern England. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, Warren 2008. Shakespeare’s Additions to Thomas Kyd’s ‘The Spanish Tragedy’: A Fresh Look at the Evidence Regarding the 1602 Additions. Lewiston, NY: MellenGoogle Scholar
Stopes, Charlotte Carmichael 1919a. ‘Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More’, Times Literary Supplement May 29: 295Google Scholar
Stopes, Charlotte Carmichael 1919b. ‘Shakespeare’s Handwriting’, Times Literary Supplement June 19: 337Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, Samuel A. 1925. ‘Shakespeare’s Unquestioned Autographs and the Addition to Sir Thomas More’, Studies in Philology 22: 133–60Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, Samuel A. 1927. The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore (A Bibliotic Study). New York: The Tenny PressGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, Samuel A. 1928. ‘More about the Bookie [sic] of Sir Thomas Moore’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 43: 767–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanselle, G. Thomas 1989. A Rationale of Textual Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
Tarlinskaja, Marina 2011. ‘Shakespeare Among Others in Sir Thomas More: Verse Form and Attribution’, in Lotman, Mihhail and Lotman, Maria-Kristiina (eds.), Frontiers in Comparative Prosody: In Memorium: Mikhail Gasparov. Oxford: Peter Lang, pp. 121–42Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary 1989. ‘The Date and Auspices of the Additions to Sir Thomas More’, in Howard-Hill (ed.), pp. 101–29Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary 1991. Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present. London: VintageGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Gary, and Jowett, John 1993. Shakespeare Reshaped, 1606–1623. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Leslie 1996. ‘A Quarto ‘Marked for Performance’: Evidence of What?’ Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 8: 176–210Google Scholar
Thomson, Peter 1997. ‘Rogues and Rhetoricians: Acting Styles in Early English Drama’, in Cox and Kastan (eds.), pp. 321–35Google Scholar
Thompson, Edward Maunde 1915–17. ‘The Autograph Manuscripts of Anthony Mundy’, Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 14: 325–53Google Scholar
Thompson, Edward Maunde 1916. Shakespeare’s Handwriting: A Study. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Edward Maunde 1919. ‘Shakespeare’s Handwriting’, Times Literary Supplement June 12: 325Google Scholar
Thompson, Edward Maunde 1921. ‘Shakespeare’s Handwriting’, Times Literary Supplement August 4: 499Google Scholar
Thompson, Edward Maunde 1923. ‘The Handwriting of the Three Pages Attributed to Shakespeare Compared to His Signatures’, in Pollard (ed.), pp. 57–112Google Scholar
Thompson, Edward Maunde 1925. ‘The “Spurred a”’, Times Literary Supplement September 17: 600Google Scholar
Velz, John W. 1989. ‘Sir Thomas More and the Shakespeare Canon: Two Approaches’, in Howard-Hill (ed.), pp. 171–95Google Scholar
Vickers, Brian 2002. Shakespeare, Co-author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Vickers, Brian 2011. ‘Shakespeare and Authorship Studies in the Twenty-first Century’, Shakespeare Quarterly 62: 106–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jonathan 2013. ‘Reading Materiality: The Literary Critical Treatment of Physical Texts’, Renaissance Drama new ser. 41: 199–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Timothy Irish 2009. ‘The Authorship of the Hand-D Addition to The Book of Sir Thomas More’, in Craig and Kinney (eds.), pp. 134–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Stanley 1984. Re-editing Shakespeare for the Modern Reader. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Stanley, Taylor, Gary, Jowett, John, and Montgomery, William 1987. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Stanley, Taylor, Gary, Jowett, John, and Montgomery, William (eds.) 2005. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Werstine, Paul 1988. ‘McKerrow’s “Suggestion” and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Textual Criticism’, Renaissance Drama new ser. 19: 149–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werstine, Paul 1990. ‘Narratives About Printed Shakespeare Texts: “Foul Papers” and “Bad” Quartos’, Shakespeare Quarterly 41: 65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werstine, Paul 1999a. ‘Post-Theory Problems in Shakespeare Editing’, Yearbook of English Studies 29: 103–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werstine, Paul 1999b. ‘Shakespeare, More or Less: A. W. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing’, Florilegium 16: 125–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werstine, Paul 2002. ‘Close Contrivers: Nameless Collaborators in Early Modern London Plays’, in McGee, C. E. and Magnusson, A. L., with Creelman, Valerie and Pettigrew, Todd (eds.), The Elizabethan Theatre XV. Toronto: P. D. Meany, pp. 3–20Google Scholar
Werstine, Paul 2007. ‘The Science of Editing’, in Murphy, Andrew (ed.), A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 109–27Google Scholar
Werstine, Paul 2013. Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts and the Editing of Shakespeare. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
White, Hayden 1978. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, George Walton 1971. ‘On Editing Shakespeare: Annus Mirabilis’, Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5: 61–79Google Scholar
Wilson, F. P. 1970. Shakespeare and the New Bibliography, revised and edited by Gardner, Helen. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. Dover 1919. ‘Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of “Sir Thomas More”’, Times Literary Supplement May 8: 251Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Dover 1923. Bibliographical Links Between the Three Pages and the Good Quartos’, in Pollard (ed.), pp. 113–41Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Dover 1934. The Manuscript of Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the Problem of Its Transmission. 2 vols. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Woudhuysen, H. R. 2004. ‘“Work of Permanent Utility”: Editors and Texts, Authorities and Originals’, in Erne and Kidnie (eds.), pp. 37–48Google Scholar
Woudhuysen, H. R. (ed.) 1998. Love’s Labour’s Lost. The Arden Shakespeare (Third Series). Walton-on-Thames, Surrey: Thomas NelsonGoogle Scholar