<p> This paper aspires to perform an analysis of Early Modern character by thinking of character as a formative process, spanning playwriting to part-learning to dramatic performance. My analysis, which will focus on Shakespeare's <i> Coriolanus</i> and <i>Julius Caesar</i>, dismisses any notion of the Shakespeare play as holistic or complete text. I draw from Tiffany Stern and Simon Palfrey's <i>Shakespeare in Parts</i>, which establishes a methodology for the analysis of "part" or "cue" scripts, texts that feature a single character's lines amputated from the larger play. </p><p> In the Early Modern period, an actor's "part" or "side" would have included his own lines and the cues he needed to know to enter the scene or begin speaking. The part would have been learned in isolation, so the actor would have relied on cues to understand how his role fit into the larger play. I argue that the function of isolated parts and cues, or the last three to five words of any character's lines, is currently underestimated in critical analysis of Shakespeare texts, especially in literary close readings that focus on "character." </p><p> The textual space that Palfrey and Stern label the "cue space" continues to be underestimated, I imagine, because critics still view this space as an overly speculative construct. It is true that we cannot speak concretely about what an Early Modern actor would or would not have done, but we can highlight the implications of a potential performance decision. Cues, sites of stability surrounded by malleability, are ripe with potential performance decisions. By drawing from a methodology grounded in an understanding of parts and cues, we may more clearly contextualize the combative collaboration between actor and playwright through which character is formed.</p>

This thesis presents a critical edition in modern spelling of The London Prodigal, a comedy played by the King's Men and printed in 1605 by Thomas Creede for the publisher Nathaniel Butter. The title-page (photographically reproduced) attributes the play to William Shakespeare. This claim is assessed and judged to be mistaken. Both external and internal evidence have been examined in relation to eight possible authorship candidates; Thomas Dekker emerges as the strongest. The present text of the play is based on the 1605 Quarto. Collation of twelve copies revealed several press variants. The introduction treats the play's publication and stage-history and takes a critical look at its background and sources, plot and structure, setting, characters, style, themes, and role in the development of Elizabethan-Jacobean drama. An attempt is made to determine the date of composition, as well as the author. A short section is devoted to conjecture about the manuscript copy used for the Quarto and to bibliographical deductions about its treatment in the printing-house. A full commentary glosses obscurities and enlarges on the play's literary, social, and historical allusions. There are textual notes on variants, emendations, and lineation. An appendix reproduces the parable of the Prodigal Son from the 1568 Bishops' Bible. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

This thesis presents a critical edition in modern spelling of The London Prodigal, a comedy played by the King's Men and printed in 1605 by Thomas Creede for the publisher Nathaniel Butter. The title-page (photographically reproduced) attributes the play to William Shakespeare. This claim is assessed and judged to be mistaken. Both external and internal evidence have been examined in relation to eight possible authorship candidates; Thomas Dekker emerges as the strongest. The present text of the play is based on the 1605 Quarto. Collation of twelve copies revealed several press variants. The introduction treats the play's publication and stage-history and takes a critical look at its background and sources, plot and structure, setting, characters, style, themes, and role in the development of Elizabethan-Jacobean drama. An attempt is made to determine the date of composition, as well as the author. A short section is devoted to conjecture about the manuscript copy used for the Quarto and to bibliographical deductions about its treatment in the printing-house. A full commentary glosses obscurities and enlarges on the play's literary, social, and historical allusions. There are textual notes on variants, emendations, and lineation. An appendix reproduces the parable of the Prodigal Son from the 1568 Bishops' Bible. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

This thesis presents a critical edition in modern spelling of The London Prodigal, a comedy played by the King's Men and printed in 1605 by Thomas Creede for the publisher Nathaniel Butter. The title-page (photographically reproduced) attributes the play to William Shakespeare. This claim is assessed and judged to be mistaken. Both external and internal evidence have been examined in relation to eight possible authorship candidates; Thomas Dekker emerges as the strongest. The present text of the play is based on the 1605 Quarto. Collation of twelve copies revealed several press variants. The introduction treats the play's publication and stage-history and takes a critical look at its background and sources, plot and structure, setting, characters, style, themes, and role in the development of Elizabethan-Jacobean drama. An attempt is made to determine the date of composition, as well as the author. A short section is devoted to conjecture about the manuscript copy used for the Quarto and to bibliographical deductions about its treatment in the printing-house. A full commentary glosses obscurities and enlarges on the play's literary, social, and historical allusions. There are textual notes on variants, emendations, and lineation. An appendix reproduces the parable of the Prodigal Son from the 1568 Bishops' Bible. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

This thesis presents a critical edition in modern spelling of The London Prodigal, a comedy played by the King's Men and printed in 1605 by Thomas Creede for the publisher Nathaniel Butter. The title-page (photographically reproduced) attributes the play to William Shakespeare. This claim is assessed and judged to be mistaken. Both external and internal evidence have been examined in relation to eight possible authorship candidates; Thomas Dekker emerges as the strongest. The present text of the play is based on the 1605 Quarto. Collation of twelve copies revealed several press variants. The introduction treats the play's publication and stage-history and takes a critical look at its background and sources, plot and structure, setting, characters, style, themes, and role in the development of Elizabethan-Jacobean drama. An attempt is made to determine the date of composition, as well as the author. A short section is devoted to conjecture about the manuscript copy used for the Quarto and to bibliographical deductions about its treatment in the printing-house. A full commentary glosses obscurities and enlarges on the play's literary, social, and historical allusions. There are textual notes on variants, emendations, and lineation. An appendix reproduces the parable of the Prodigal Son from the 1568 Bishops' Bible. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2005. / (UnM)AAI3200126. Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-12, Section: A, page: 4396. Supervisor: Eric Rothstein.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Lehigh University, 2007.

Inaug.-diss.--Leipzig.

Thesis--Indiana University. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 121-125) and index.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, Dept. of English, 2007. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-10, Section: A, page: 4308. Adviser: Linda Charnes. Title from dissertation home page (viewed May 19, 2008).