Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Evidence of a Lost Tarlton Play, c.1585, Probably for the Queen's Men

Evidence of a Lost Tarlton Play, c.1585, Probably for the Queen's Men 2012 NOTES AND QUERIES 43 many subsequent demonologists made a fore- Pop. Poetry of Scotland, etc. 1895, ii, 211. most target of their polemic ). As mentioned Halliwell, Outlines of the Life of Shakespear, th above, however, no subsequent writer on 6 ed. i,82, does not seem to have been witchcraft mentions another treatise on the aware that this was so ancient a fable or topic, sceptical or otherwise—whilst nearly all story. of them mention Scot. There is no reference to such a play in any The suggestion is no more than a possibility, of the major criticism: Alfred Harbage but the arguments in its favour make it a cred- does not list it in his Annals of English ible enough possibility to at least bear in mind Drama, E. K. Chambers does not refer to it when thinking about Scot’s work and its con- in his Elizabethan Stage, the Oxford temporary reception. Dictionary of National Biography contains no SIMON F. DAVIES mention of it in the entry for Richard Tarlton, University of Sussex and there is no description of it in the authori- doi:10.1093/notesj/gjr232 tative study of the Queen’s Men by Scott The Author (2012). Published by Oxford http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Notes and Queries Oxford University Press

Evidence of a Lost Tarlton Play, c.1585, Probably for the Queen's Men

Notes and Queries , Volume 59 (1) – Mar 27, 2012

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evidence-of-a-lost-tarlton-play-c-1585-probably-for-the-queen-s-men-HYKp1ftnSO
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
The Author (2012). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0029-3970
eISSN
1471-6941
DOI
10.1093/notesj/gjr261
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

2012 NOTES AND QUERIES 43 many subsequent demonologists made a fore- Pop. Poetry of Scotland, etc. 1895, ii, 211. most target of their polemic ). As mentioned Halliwell, Outlines of the Life of Shakespear, th above, however, no subsequent writer on 6 ed. i,82, does not seem to have been witchcraft mentions another treatise on the aware that this was so ancient a fable or topic, sceptical or otherwise—whilst nearly all story. of them mention Scot. There is no reference to such a play in any The suggestion is no more than a possibility, of the major criticism: Alfred Harbage but the arguments in its favour make it a cred- does not list it in his Annals of English ible enough possibility to at least bear in mind Drama, E. K. Chambers does not refer to it when thinking about Scot’s work and its con- in his Elizabethan Stage, the Oxford temporary reception. Dictionary of National Biography contains no SIMON F. DAVIES mention of it in the entry for Richard Tarlton, University of Sussex and there is no description of it in the authori- doi:10.1093/notesj/gjr232 tative study of the Queen’s Men by Scott The Author (2012). Published by Oxford

Journal

Notes and QueriesOxford University Press

Published: Mar 27, 2012

There are no references for this article.