Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:21:43.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Camden, Daniel, and Shakespeare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Laurence Michel
Affiliation:
University of Buffalo
George Burke Johnston
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Extract

Mr. G. B. Johnston's note, “Camden, Shakespeare, and Young Henry Percy” (PMLA, lxxvi, June 1961, 298), while citing Samuel Daniel's Civil Wars as one warrant for Shakespeare's making the forty-year-old Hotspur a contemporary of Prince Henry, finds that Camden's Britannia was behind them both, and was the most likely source; and that the “revised” and translated version of Britannia in 1610 “seems to be recalling the popular play” in adding “an extra flourish on Henry Percy.” This system of priorities is doubtless valid in general; but the further implication—that Shakespeare and Camden were closely linked in the matter, taking their cues for the delineation of Hotspur directly from each other—does not seem as likely. An examination of Mr. Johnston's evidence indicates, rather, Daniel's continued function as middleman in the complex.

Type
Notes, Documents, and Critical Comment
Information
PMLA , Volume 77 , Issue 4-Part1 , September 1962 , pp. 510 - 512
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Worthies; cited in my edition of Daniel's Philotas (New Haven, 1949), p. 51.

2 Cited in my edition of Daniel's Civil Wars (New Haven, 1958), pp. 6–7.

3 Ibid., pp. 21–26; and “Shakespeare's History Plays and Daniel: an Assessment,” SP, lii (1953), 563–567.

4 Ibid., p. 26, n. 27.

1 William Camden, Remains Concerning Britain (London, 1870), p. 344. A copy of the first edition of the Remaines is not available here; but I have compared my copy of the reprint with a 1605 edition in the Folger Library and made marginal corrections in the reprint.

2 Coriolanus, ed. J. Dover Wilson (London and New York, 1960), pp. xi-xvi.

3 T. W. Baldwin, Shakespere's Small Latine & Lesse Greeke (Urbana, Ill., 1944), i, 658–659.