[Middleton] in which Our Heroine is ambitious (The Phoenix, 1603-04)

[angevin2]

First of all, I wish to squee a bit on the grounds that lareinenoire got me Jonathan Slinger's autograph. He has been the recipient of a lot of transatlantic fangirling from me although I have only seen him in some clips from Richard III on YouTube and one scene in A Knight's Tale in which he has a truly unfortunate medieval mullet; by all accounts, he is a

Comments

[liseuse]

I like to believe that in Middleton it's all about money and that sex is either a handy side-effect, or a route to the money. I may need it to be this way around for my dissertation to work.

I wholeheartedly approve of this plan. I'd say that I'd join you, but I spend my life reading and re-reading Chaste Maid, A Mad World and A Fair Quarrel at the moment, so I don't think my brain can really stand anymore Middleton. I'll just cheer from the sides!

As for the debate over The Revenger's Tragedy, I'm so not hip on the reasons for its new attribution to Middleton, but I do have a silly anecdote about it. See, I'd been reading Tam Lin, which obviously makes copious reference to it, and I went to see my undergraduate diss supervisor, we were chatting and I make mention of Tourneur's Revengers and she gets this *look* which makes me quail. I stutter to a stop, and she interjects, none too kindly for she has the tersest manner known to mankind, and goes "it's thought to be by Middleton these days" (with a side-intonation of fool) and I have to wiffle about having been reading Tam Lin and getting all confused. Which I felt even more justified in when I saw that undergrad library only had copies with Tourneur's name on.

/not really related anecdote.

[angevin2]

The Revels student edition (which is the one I first read it from) attributes it to "Middleton/Tourneur" (OTP! Theirloveissovengeful!), which is kind of wimpy. I had it listed as by Middleton on my exam reading list, and my old supervisor said I should list it as Tourneur, because Middleton has enough plays to his name already. I haven't got a dog in the fight though. I sympathize with your anecdote, though! :o

The Oxford editors -- I forget who did the intro/annotations for RT and it is a testament to how enormous the book is that I'm thinking of looking it up as a lot of work even though it is sitting right next to me on my desk -- talk a lot about how the morality (or lack thereof) of RT is more in keeping with Middleton than Tourneur, but I am not qualified to speak to that either.

[liseuse]

Luckily I had mine open and next to me on the desk, the editor for RT was MacDonald P. Jackson. I haven't read any Tourneur besides RT (which, y'know, isn't) so I can't really answer, but I am tempted to say that amorality and immorality are kind of the bread and butter of Middleton, so maybe?

[angevin2]

Ah yes, Macdonald Jackson, my current nemesis!

...well, okay, not really, but he did write the most in-depth argument for Woodstock being a Jacobean play, about which I have complained a lot, since the idea is actually really interesting, but it also wrecks my chapter on Woodstock, so I would rather his view not become the prevailing one.

[liseuse]

I think in that case, that you are perfectly justified in referring to him as a nemesis.