What do you think?
Rate this book
兀卮賴乇 伲贍 禺乇丕賮丞 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇
賴賱 丕爻鬲購禺丿賽賲賻鬲賿 噩賲噩賲丞賹 丨賯賷賯賷丞賹 賮賷 丕賱毓乇賵囟 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賱賲爻乇丨賷丞 芦賴丕賲賱鬲禄責 賴賱 丨賯賻賾賯賻鬲賿 賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲購 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賳噩丕丨丕鬲賺 賲購丿賵賽賾賷丞賸 賮賷 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱廿賱賷夭丕亘賷孬賷責 賲丕 丨噩賲 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賳毓乇賮賴丕 丨賯賸賾丕 毓賳 丨賷丕丞賽 賴匕丕 丕賱賲丐賱賽賾賮 丕賱卮賴賷乇責 賲丕匕丕 毓賳 毓賱丕賯鬲賴 丕賱爻賷卅丞 亘夭賵噩鬲賴責
賲丕 兀賰孬乇 丕賱禺乇丕賮丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 匕丕毓鬲 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賱兀爻亘丕亘賺 毓丿丞貙 賲賳賴丕 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷丞 丨賵賱 卮禺氐賷鬲賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱賰丕乇賷夭賲賷丞 丕賱毓賻氐賽賷賻賾丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賴賲貙 賵兀賷囟賸丕 賱兀賳 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱禺賱丕賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲孬賷乇賴丕 丿乇丕爻丕鬲購 卮賰爻亘賷乇 鈥� 丿賵賳 爻賵丕賴 賲賳 丕賱乇賲賵夭 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 鈥� 鬲鬲氐丿賻賾乇 毓賳丕賵賷賳賻 丕賱兀禺亘丕乇!
賵賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘購 丕賱乇丕卅毓購 賷爻鬲賰卮賮 伲贍 禺乇丕賮丞 卮丕卅毓丞 丨賵賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰丕鬲賽亘 丕賱毓馗賷賲 賵賷購賮賻賳賽賾丿賴丕 賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇賺 噩丿賷丿賺貙 賵賷賳丕賯卮 丕賱廿卮賰丕賱賷丕鬲 丕賱賰亘乇賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿丕毓賽亘 禺賷丕賱賻 丕賱毓丕賲丞 丨賵賱 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賵賲爻乇丨賴 賵賳氐賵氐賴貙 賵匕賱賰 毓亘乇賻 爻賱爻賱丞賺 賲賳 丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賯氐賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲爻購賾 兀亘乇夭賻 丕賴鬲賲丕賲丕鬲賽 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷丞.
賮廿匕丕 賰賳鬲賻 鬲馗賳 兀賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賰丕賳 賰丕鬲亘賸丕 賲爻乇丨賷賸賾丕 賲賳 爻鬲乇丕鬲賮賵乇丿貙 兀賵 兀賳 賲爻乇丨賷丞 芦賲丕賰亘孬禄 賲卮卅賵賲丞貙 賮毓賱賷賰 兀賳 鬲購毓賽賷丿 丕賱賳馗乇.
賲丕 兀賰孬乇 丕賱禺乇丕賮丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 匕丕毓鬲 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賱兀爻亘丕亘賺 毓丿丞貙 賲賳賴丕 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷丞 丨賵賱 卮禺氐賷鬲賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱賰丕乇賷夭賲賷丞 丕賱毓賻氐賽賷賻賾丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賴賲貙 賵兀賷囟賸丕 賱兀賳 丕賱賯囟丕賷丕 丕賱禺賱丕賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲孬賷乇賴丕 丿乇丕爻丕鬲購 卮賰爻亘賷乇 鈥� 丿賵賳 爻賵丕賴 賲賳 丕賱乇賲賵夭 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 鈥� 鬲鬲氐丿賻賾乇 毓賳丕賵賷賳賻 丕賱兀禺亘丕乇!
賵賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘購 丕賱乇丕卅毓購 賷爻鬲賰卮賮 伲贍 禺乇丕賮丞 卮丕卅毓丞 丨賵賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰丕鬲賽亘 丕賱毓馗賷賲 賵賷購賮賻賳賽賾丿賴丕 賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇賺 噩丿賷丿賺貙 賵賷賳丕賯卮 丕賱廿卮賰丕賱賷丕鬲 丕賱賰亘乇賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿丕毓賽亘 禺賷丕賱賻 丕賱毓丕賲丞 丨賵賱 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賵賲爻乇丨賴 賵賳氐賵氐賴貙 賵匕賱賰 毓亘乇賻 爻賱爻賱丞賺 賲賳 丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲 丕賱賯氐賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲爻購賾 兀亘乇夭賻 丕賴鬲賲丕賲丕鬲賽 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱兀賰丕丿賷賲賷丞.
賮廿匕丕 賰賳鬲賻 鬲馗賳 兀賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賰丕賳 賰丕鬲亘賸丕 賲爻乇丨賷賸賾丕 賲賳 爻鬲乇丕鬲賮賵乇丿貙 兀賵 兀賳 賲爻乇丨賷丞 芦賲丕賰亘孬禄 賲卮卅賵賲丞貙 賮毓賱賷賰 兀賳 鬲購毓賽賷丿 丕賱賳馗乇.
- GenresNonfictionHistoryTheatre
290 pages, ebook
First published October 24, 2012
6 people are currently reading
173 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
March 29, 2020
賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 賱賰賳賴 亘丨丕噩丞 廿賱賶 丕賱丕禺鬲氐丕乇貙 賵毓乇囟 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 亘氐賵乇丞 兀賰孬乇 鬲卮賵賷賯丕 賱賱賯丕乇卅 丕賱毓丕丿賷
September 5, 2021
廿賳 賲爻兀賱丞 兀氐丕賱丞 丕賱鬲兀賱賷賮 賴賷 鬲賳丕賮乇 兀賷丿賷賱賵噩賷 卮丕匕貨 賮賴賷貙 賲賳 噩賴丞貙 鬲囟乇亘 亘噩匕賵乇賴丕 賮賷 廿毓丕丿丞 鬲賲丨賷氐 兀爻丕爻賷丞 賱賲睾夭賶 賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 卮賰爻亘賷乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷. 賳賵毓賸丕 賲丕貙 賰丕賳 鬲胤乇賮賴丕 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 丕賱賲購丿賿乇賻賰 丨丿賷孬賸丕 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 噩毓賱 賲賳 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 兀賳 賷賵丿 賲丐賱賮賴丕 廿禺賮丕亍 賴賵賷鬲賴. 乇賻爻賻賾禺賻鬲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 賵丕賱亘丕丨孬丞 丕賱兀賲乇賷賰賷丞 丿賷賱賷丕 亘賷賰賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲賯賱賷丿 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇賷 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴丕 丕賱睾丕賲囟 芦廿賲丕胤丞 丕賱賱孬丕賲 毓賳 賮賱爻賮丞 賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 卮賰爻亘賷乇禄 (佟侉佶侑)貙 賵賴賵 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱匕賷 丕爻鬲賯胤亘 賳丕孬丕賳賷丕賱 賴賵孬賵乇賳 賵乇丕賱賮 賵丕賱丿賵 廿賷賲乇爻賵賳 廿賱賶 丿毓賵丕賴丕. 兀賷丿鬲 亘賷賰賵賳 賵賲賳 爻丕乇 毓賱賶 丿乇亘賴丕 賱丕丨賯賸丕 毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 亘丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 丕賱賲毓丕氐乇丞 賱賴丕 亘胤乇賯 爻亘賯鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱賱丕丨賯丞 丕賱賲毓賳賷丞 亘賲賰丕賳丞 丕賱賲爻乇丨 賮賷 廿賳噩賱鬲乇丕 賮賷 兀賵丕卅賱 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬貙 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 毓丿賵丕賳賷賸賾丕 賲賳 丕賱賳丕丨賷丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞貙 賵賲孬賷乇賸丕 賱賱賮鬲賳 賲賳 丕賱賳丕丨賷丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 (賷賱丨馗 賱噩賷賲爻 卮丕亘賷乇賵貙 賮賷 丿乇丕爻丞 賲爻鬲賮賷囟丞 丨丿賷孬丞 賱賲爻兀賱丞 兀氐丕賱丞 丕賱鬲兀賱賷賮 賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 賳賯丿賷丞 賵丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞貙 兀賳賴 賱賵 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賲乇鬲亘胤丞 亘賲爻兀賱丞 兀氐丕賱丞 丕賱鬲兀賱賷賮 芦賱丨馗賷鬲 亘賷賰賵賳 丨丕賱賷賸賾丕 亘丕賱丨賮丕賵丞 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 亘丕賰賵乇丞 丕賱賲丐乇禺賷賳 丕賱噩丿丿貙 賵兀賵賱 賲賳 賷賮鬲乇囟 亘兀賳 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 丕爻鬲卮乇賮鬲 丕賱丕囟胤乇丕亘丕鬲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 卮賴丿鬲賴丕 廿賳噩賱鬲乇丕 賮賷 賲賳鬲氐賮 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱爻丕亘毓 毓卮乇禄)
賵賱賰賳貙 賮賷 賲賯丕亘賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賲鬲胤乇賮丞 賵丕賱賲購爻賻賷賻賾爻賻丞 賱賱賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲貙 賱賲爻兀賱丞 兀氐丕賱丞 丕賱鬲兀賱賷賮 賯丕賱亘 賲鬲丨賮馗 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷賸賾丕 亘卮丿丞貨 賮兀賳氐丕乇賴丕 賷爻鬲丨賷賱 兀賳 賷丐賲賳賵丕 亘兀賳 丕亘賳 氐丕賳毓 賯賮丕夭丕鬲 賲賳 賲丿賷賳丞 爻賵賯賷丞 乇賷賮賷丞 賱賲 賷丨氐賱 毓賱賶 鬲毓賱賷賲 噩丕賲毓賷 賷賲賰賳賴貙 亘兀賷 丨丕賱 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賵丕賱貙 兀賳 賷丐賱賮 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賲賳爻賵亘丞 廿賱賷賴. 賵賱賷爻 賲賳 賯亘賷賱 丕賱賲氐丕丿賮丞 兀賳 丕賱賲乇卮丨賷賳 丕賱亘丿賱丕亍 賱鬲兀賱賷賮 賴匕賴 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 賰賱賴賲 賳亘賱丕亍貨 賮乇丕賳爻賷爻 亘賷賰賵賳貙 賵丕賱爻賷乇 賴賳乇賷 賳賷賮賷賱貙 賵廿賷乇賱 兀賰爻賮賵乇丿貙 賵廿賷乇賱 丿賷乇亘賷貙 亘賱 賵丨鬲賶 丕賱賲賱賰丞 廿賱賷夭丕亘賷孬 賲丿毓賵賲丞 亘鬲丨賱賱 乇爻賵賲賷 賲鬲賵賱丿 亘丕賱丨丕爻賵亘貙 賱賱賰卮賮 毓賳 氐賵乇丞 賱賱賲賱賰丞 丕賱毓匕乇丕亍 賲鬲禺賮賷丞 賮賷 賴賷卅丞 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賮賷 氐丿乇 賲噩賲賵毓丞 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賰丕賲賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶. 賵丕賱亘丿賷賱 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱賲賳鬲賲賷 廿賱賶 芦毓丕賲丞 丕賱賳丕爻禄 賮賷 丕賱賯丕卅賲丞 賴賵 賰乇賷爻鬲賵賮乇 賲丕乇賱賵貙 禺乇賷噩 噩丕賲毓丞 賰丕賲亘乇賷丿噩. 賵賱賰賳 賲丕 賲賳 丿丕毓賺貙 丕賱賱賴賲 廿賱丕 丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷貙 賵乇丕亍 丕賱乇亘胤 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賯丿乇丕鬲 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 賵亘賷賳 丕賱賲賰丕賳丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 兀賵 丕賱賳爻亘貙 賵賱丕 爻賷賲丕 賮賷 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲爻乇丨貙 丨賷孬 賰丕賳 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷 芦氐賻賳丕卅賽毓賽賷賸賾丕禄 賵賴賷 賰賱賲丞 噩丿賷丿丞 鬲氐賮 賲賴賳丞 噩丿賷丿丞貙 丕卮賿鬲購賯賻賾鬲賿 賯賷丕爻賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱丨賽乇賻賮賷 丕賱賲丕賴乇貙 賰氐丕賳毓 丕賱毓噩賱丕鬲 兀賵 氐丕賳毓 丕賱爻賮賳. 廿賳 丕賱賲夭丕毓賲 亘兀賳 廿賲丕 兀賳 賰丕鬲亘 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 賱丕 亘丿 兀賳賴 兀丨丿 乇噩丕賱 丕賱亘賱丕胤貙 兀賵 兀賳 賲丐賱賮賴丕 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷 賱賲 賷爻鬲胤毓 兀賳 賷購丿賻賳賽賾爻賻 匕丕鬲賴 亘丕賯鬲丨丕賲 爻賵賯 丕賱胤亘丕毓丞 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賴賷 賲噩乇丿 鬲賵賰賷丿丕鬲 賱丕 兀丿賱丞. 賮賷 賲賵丕胤賳 兀禺乇賶 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻亘賯 兀賳 兀賵囟丨賳丕 兀賳 鬲毓賱賷賲 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賰丕賳 賲賵爻賻賾毓賸丕貙 賵兀賳賴 賱賲 賷賰賳 亘丨丕噩丞 廿賱賶 丕賱爻賮乇 廿賱賶 丕賱禺丕乇噩 賱賷賰鬲亘 賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲賴. 廿賳 賲丕 賳毓乇賮賴 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 丨賯賸賾丕 鈥� 賵賲丕 賷卮賴丿 亘賴 賲毓丕氐乇賵賴 亘丕賱賯丿乇 丕賱賰丕賮賷 鈥� 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 亘廿賲賰丕賳賴 鬲兀賱賷賮 賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 禺賷丕賱賷丞 賵噩匕丕亘丞 丕卮鬲賲賱鬲 毓賱賶 賲賱丕夭賲丞 丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷丞 賵丕賱賰賮丕亍丞 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 賱賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱賲鬲丨丿孬賷賳 丕賱匕賷賳 賷賳鬲賲賵賳 廿賱賶 胤亘賯丕鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞.
毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賵兀氐丕賱丞 丕賱鬲兀賱賷賮
賵賱賰賳貙 賮賷 賲賯丕亘賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賲鬲胤乇賮丞 賵丕賱賲購爻賻賷賻賾爻賻丞 賱賱賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲貙 賱賲爻兀賱丞 兀氐丕賱丞 丕賱鬲兀賱賷賮 賯丕賱亘 賲鬲丨賮馗 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷賸賾丕 亘卮丿丞貨 賮兀賳氐丕乇賴丕 賷爻鬲丨賷賱 兀賳 賷丐賲賳賵丕 亘兀賳 丕亘賳 氐丕賳毓 賯賮丕夭丕鬲 賲賳 賲丿賷賳丞 爻賵賯賷丞 乇賷賮賷丞 賱賲 賷丨氐賱 毓賱賶 鬲毓賱賷賲 噩丕賲毓賷 賷賲賰賳賴貙 亘兀賷 丨丕賱 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賵丕賱貙 兀賳 賷丐賱賮 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賲賳爻賵亘丞 廿賱賷賴. 賵賱賷爻 賲賳 賯亘賷賱 丕賱賲氐丕丿賮丞 兀賳 丕賱賲乇卮丨賷賳 丕賱亘丿賱丕亍 賱鬲兀賱賷賮 賴匕賴 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 賰賱賴賲 賳亘賱丕亍貨 賮乇丕賳爻賷爻 亘賷賰賵賳貙 賵丕賱爻賷乇 賴賳乇賷 賳賷賮賷賱貙 賵廿賷乇賱 兀賰爻賮賵乇丿貙 賵廿賷乇賱 丿賷乇亘賷貙 亘賱 賵丨鬲賶 丕賱賲賱賰丞 廿賱賷夭丕亘賷孬 賲丿毓賵賲丞 亘鬲丨賱賱 乇爻賵賲賷 賲鬲賵賱丿 亘丕賱丨丕爻賵亘貙 賱賱賰卮賮 毓賳 氐賵乇丞 賱賱賲賱賰丞 丕賱毓匕乇丕亍 賲鬲禺賮賷丞 賮賷 賴賷卅丞 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賮賷 氐丿乇 賲噩賲賵毓丞 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賰丕賲賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶. 賵丕賱亘丿賷賱 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱賲賳鬲賲賷 廿賱賶 芦毓丕賲丞 丕賱賳丕爻禄 賮賷 丕賱賯丕卅賲丞 賴賵 賰乇賷爻鬲賵賮乇 賲丕乇賱賵貙 禺乇賷噩 噩丕賲毓丞 賰丕賲亘乇賷丿噩. 賵賱賰賳 賲丕 賲賳 丿丕毓賺貙 丕賱賱賴賲 廿賱丕 丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷貙 賵乇丕亍 丕賱乇亘胤 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賯丿乇丕鬲 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 賵亘賷賳 丕賱賲賰丕賳丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 兀賵 丕賱賳爻亘貙 賵賱丕 爻賷賲丕 賮賷 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲爻乇丨貙 丨賷孬 賰丕賳 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷 芦氐賻賳丕卅賽毓賽賷賸賾丕禄 賵賴賷 賰賱賲丞 噩丿賷丿丞 鬲氐賮 賲賴賳丞 噩丿賷丿丞貙 丕卮賿鬲購賯賻賾鬲賿 賯賷丕爻賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱丨賽乇賻賮賷 丕賱賲丕賴乇貙 賰氐丕賳毓 丕賱毓噩賱丕鬲 兀賵 氐丕賳毓 丕賱爻賮賳. 廿賳 丕賱賲夭丕毓賲 亘兀賳 廿賲丕 兀賳 賰丕鬲亘 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 賱丕 亘丿 兀賳賴 兀丨丿 乇噩丕賱 丕賱亘賱丕胤貙 兀賵 兀賳 賲丐賱賮賴丕 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷 賱賲 賷爻鬲胤毓 兀賳 賷購丿賻賳賽賾爻賻 匕丕鬲賴 亘丕賯鬲丨丕賲 爻賵賯 丕賱胤亘丕毓丞 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賴賷 賲噩乇丿 鬲賵賰賷丿丕鬲 賱丕 兀丿賱丞. 賮賷 賲賵丕胤賳 兀禺乇賶 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻亘賯 兀賳 兀賵囟丨賳丕 兀賳 鬲毓賱賷賲 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賰丕賳 賲賵爻賻賾毓賸丕貙 賵兀賳賴 賱賲 賷賰賳 亘丨丕噩丞 廿賱賶 丕賱爻賮乇 廿賱賶 丕賱禺丕乇噩 賱賷賰鬲亘 賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲賴. 廿賳 賲丕 賳毓乇賮賴 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 丨賯賸賾丕 鈥� 賵賲丕 賷卮賴丿 亘賴 賲毓丕氐乇賵賴 亘丕賱賯丿乇 丕賱賰丕賮賷 鈥� 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 亘廿賲賰丕賳賴 鬲兀賱賷賮 賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲 禺賷丕賱賷丞 賵噩匕丕亘丞 丕卮鬲賲賱鬲 毓賱賶 賲賱丕夭賲丞 丕賱乇丐賷丞 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷丞 賵丕賱賰賮丕亍丞 丕賱賱睾賵賷丞 賱賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱賲鬲丨丿孬賷賳 丕賱匕賷賳 賷賳鬲賲賵賳 廿賱賶 胤亘賯丕鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞.
毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賵兀氐丕賱丞 丕賱鬲兀賱賷賮
February 7, 2021
In a book that manages the atypical achievement of exercising intellectual caution and good sense throughout, while still providing an exceedingly interesting portrait of the man himself, Oxford intellectuals Laurie Maguire and Emma Smith examine 30 of the best-known rumours about Shakespeare and, overall, flatten them.
This book seeks to cross-examine several things we believe we know about Shakespeare, and we have called this body of knowledge 鈥渕yths.鈥�
Why 鈥渕yths鈥�?
The authors were drawn to this term for the Shakespeare content in each of the chapters because 鈥渕yth鈥� forefronts the act of storytelling; because it underscores the edifying work these stories do rather than their correctness; because it is not about a defined dot of origin but about accepted principles; because it is about the people who accept or invent or need these stories as much as it is about the stories themselves.
This book has been detailed into the following chapters:
Myth 1: Shakespeare was the most popular writer of his time
Myth 2: Shakespeare was not well educated
Myth 3: Shakespeare's plays should be performed in elizabethan dress
Myth 4: Shakespeare was not interested in having his plays printed
Myth 5: Shakespeare never traveled
Myth 6: Shakespeare's plays are politically incorrect
Myth 7: Shakespeare was a Catholic
Myth 8: Shakespeare's plays had no scenery
Myth 9: Shakespeare's tragedies are more serious than his comedies
Myth 10: Shakespeare hated his wife
Myth 11: Shakespeare wrote in the rhythms of everyday speech
Myth 12: Hamlet was named after Shakespeare's son
Myth 13: The coarse bits of Shakespeare are for the groundlings; the philosophy is for the upper classes
Myth 14: Shakespeare was a Stratford playwright
Myth 15: Shakespeare was a plagiarist
Myth 16: We don't know much about Shakespeare's life
Myth 17: Shakespeare wrote alone
Myth 18: Shakespeare's sonnets are autobiographical
Myth 19: If Shakespeare were writing now, he'd be writing for Hollywood
Myth 20: The Tempest was Shakespeare's farewell to the stage
Myth 21: Shakespeare had a huge vocabulary
Myth 22: Shakespeare's plays are timeless
Myth 23: Macbeth is jinxed in the theater
Myth 24: Shakespeare did not revise his plays
Myth 25: Boy actors played women's roles
Myth 26: Shakespeare's plays don't work as movies
Myth 27: Yorick's skull was real
Myth 28: Queen Elizabeth loved Shakespeare's plays
Myth 29: Shakespeare's characters are like real people
Myth 30: Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare
Myths proliferate about Shakespeare in some measure because of half-remembered or out-of-date scholarship from schooldays, because Shakespeare the man is such an intangible and captivating cultural property, and because intercessions in Shakespeare studies, predominantly biographical and theatrical ones, make headline news: witness the 鈥渁uthorship question鈥� (Myth 30) or speculation about Shakespeare's beliefs or sexuality (Myths 7 and 18).
Put minimally, myths are told and retold about Shakespeare because no other writer matters as much to the world: nineteenth-century Germany had a flourishing academic Shakespeare criticism before England did; India had a Shakespeare Society before England; Shakespeare is regularly performed at amateur and professional levels, in translation, worldwide. Shakespeare is not just English (as Germany's 鈥渦nser [our] Shakespeare鈥� attests).
Thus myths about Shakespeare go some way toward telling us stories about ourselves.
We in point of fact know a good deal about Shakespeare鈥檚 life and movements, the authors reveal 鈥� far more than many other near contemporaries.
Along with the plays and sonnets, and plenty of material on his family in Stratford-upon-Avon, we also have documents showing Shakespeare involved in court cases and purchasing property, and we have his will. There are also some significant things Shakespeare didn鈥檛 do, which may help understand his personality. Consider the increasingly popular idea that he was a secret Catholic.
This offers the thrill of the hidden and the illicit 鈥� for example, secret codes in his poems. The way the authors unravel this scrupulous myth is intensely cogent.
Evidence for Shakespeare鈥檚 Catholicism is purportedly the religious landscape of Hamlet, in which the soul of Hamlet鈥檚 murdered father is obviously in hell. The religious references in the plays do 鈥榯heatrical not religious work鈥�, Maguire and Smith assert, and his own 鈥榬eligious beliefs become less a matter of individual biography and more a snapshot of present-day shifts, uncertainties and overlaps鈥�.
Here鈥檚 another myth the book attacks. Far from being only basically educated, Shakespeare would have benefited from the rigorous education of the sixteenth-century grammar school, 6 am to 6 pm every day, with higher classes conducted in Latin.
He never went to university, true, but we can tell from the sources of his plays that he remained a ravenous reader all his life: medieval poetry, Italian fiction, history ancient and medieval, even existing continental philosophy, and he could read in French and Italian, too.
In contradiction of another myth, Shakespeare didn鈥檛 have a principally exaggerated vocabulary by Elizabethan standards. Shakespeare coined some new words, but so did everyone else: Thomas More gave us the word lunatic, Francis Bacon gave us thermometer and skeleton.
It is the utter volume and familiarity of what he wrote that explain why he is so often credited in the original Oxford English Dictionary as the originator of words 鈥� but as the OED has been revised, and as more 16th -century texts have been digitally searched, so the number of new words attributed to Shakespeare has 鈥榮ubstantially decreased鈥�.
The Shakespeare the authors give us is not an especially warm man. They point to an understandable absence of generous giving or concern for the less fortunate. In his will he left the poor of his birthplace, Stratford-upon-Avon, a derisory sum of cash, no bursaries, no scholarships, no endowments.
Everything else stayed in the family.
Not all of the myths are fallacious: in calling these beliefs 鈥渕yths鈥� we are less interested in stigmatizing them as imprudent or unsubstantiated than we are concerned to understand how they become ossified and block, rather than enable, our interpretation of Shakespeare's works.
Even the idea that he is more than ever impenetrable, always key to any 鈥楽hakespeare was really someone else鈥� theory, is point-blank false.
And as the authors themselves declare: 鈥淭he temptation for a book of this sort is to focus on Shakespeare's biography. Shakespeare biography is a fruitful field for myths, from the youthful deer-poaching episode (described by Nicholas Rowe at the beginning of the eighteenth century) to the technicalities of the marriage (attested by the record books) to the missing years (documented nowhere). Inevitably, we have included some of these examples but we have tried, wherever we can, to move the discussion on to the plays and poems themselves. Whereas most of our myths involve layers of interpretative accretion between us and the Elizabethan period, reading Shakespeare's works themselves can shortcut some of this narrative padding.鈥�
This book seeks to cross-examine several things we believe we know about Shakespeare, and we have called this body of knowledge 鈥渕yths.鈥�
Why 鈥渕yths鈥�?
The authors were drawn to this term for the Shakespeare content in each of the chapters because 鈥渕yth鈥� forefronts the act of storytelling; because it underscores the edifying work these stories do rather than their correctness; because it is not about a defined dot of origin but about accepted principles; because it is about the people who accept or invent or need these stories as much as it is about the stories themselves.
This book has been detailed into the following chapters:
Myth 1: Shakespeare was the most popular writer of his time
Myth 2: Shakespeare was not well educated
Myth 3: Shakespeare's plays should be performed in elizabethan dress
Myth 4: Shakespeare was not interested in having his plays printed
Myth 5: Shakespeare never traveled
Myth 6: Shakespeare's plays are politically incorrect
Myth 7: Shakespeare was a Catholic
Myth 8: Shakespeare's plays had no scenery
Myth 9: Shakespeare's tragedies are more serious than his comedies
Myth 10: Shakespeare hated his wife
Myth 11: Shakespeare wrote in the rhythms of everyday speech
Myth 12: Hamlet was named after Shakespeare's son
Myth 13: The coarse bits of Shakespeare are for the groundlings; the philosophy is for the upper classes
Myth 14: Shakespeare was a Stratford playwright
Myth 15: Shakespeare was a plagiarist
Myth 16: We don't know much about Shakespeare's life
Myth 17: Shakespeare wrote alone
Myth 18: Shakespeare's sonnets are autobiographical
Myth 19: If Shakespeare were writing now, he'd be writing for Hollywood
Myth 20: The Tempest was Shakespeare's farewell to the stage
Myth 21: Shakespeare had a huge vocabulary
Myth 22: Shakespeare's plays are timeless
Myth 23: Macbeth is jinxed in the theater
Myth 24: Shakespeare did not revise his plays
Myth 25: Boy actors played women's roles
Myth 26: Shakespeare's plays don't work as movies
Myth 27: Yorick's skull was real
Myth 28: Queen Elizabeth loved Shakespeare's plays
Myth 29: Shakespeare's characters are like real people
Myth 30: Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare
Myths proliferate about Shakespeare in some measure because of half-remembered or out-of-date scholarship from schooldays, because Shakespeare the man is such an intangible and captivating cultural property, and because intercessions in Shakespeare studies, predominantly biographical and theatrical ones, make headline news: witness the 鈥渁uthorship question鈥� (Myth 30) or speculation about Shakespeare's beliefs or sexuality (Myths 7 and 18).
Put minimally, myths are told and retold about Shakespeare because no other writer matters as much to the world: nineteenth-century Germany had a flourishing academic Shakespeare criticism before England did; India had a Shakespeare Society before England; Shakespeare is regularly performed at amateur and professional levels, in translation, worldwide. Shakespeare is not just English (as Germany's 鈥渦nser [our] Shakespeare鈥� attests).
Thus myths about Shakespeare go some way toward telling us stories about ourselves.
We in point of fact know a good deal about Shakespeare鈥檚 life and movements, the authors reveal 鈥� far more than many other near contemporaries.
Along with the plays and sonnets, and plenty of material on his family in Stratford-upon-Avon, we also have documents showing Shakespeare involved in court cases and purchasing property, and we have his will. There are also some significant things Shakespeare didn鈥檛 do, which may help understand his personality. Consider the increasingly popular idea that he was a secret Catholic.
This offers the thrill of the hidden and the illicit 鈥� for example, secret codes in his poems. The way the authors unravel this scrupulous myth is intensely cogent.
Evidence for Shakespeare鈥檚 Catholicism is purportedly the religious landscape of Hamlet, in which the soul of Hamlet鈥檚 murdered father is obviously in hell. The religious references in the plays do 鈥榯heatrical not religious work鈥�, Maguire and Smith assert, and his own 鈥榬eligious beliefs become less a matter of individual biography and more a snapshot of present-day shifts, uncertainties and overlaps鈥�.
Here鈥檚 another myth the book attacks. Far from being only basically educated, Shakespeare would have benefited from the rigorous education of the sixteenth-century grammar school, 6 am to 6 pm every day, with higher classes conducted in Latin.
He never went to university, true, but we can tell from the sources of his plays that he remained a ravenous reader all his life: medieval poetry, Italian fiction, history ancient and medieval, even existing continental philosophy, and he could read in French and Italian, too.
In contradiction of another myth, Shakespeare didn鈥檛 have a principally exaggerated vocabulary by Elizabethan standards. Shakespeare coined some new words, but so did everyone else: Thomas More gave us the word lunatic, Francis Bacon gave us thermometer and skeleton.
It is the utter volume and familiarity of what he wrote that explain why he is so often credited in the original Oxford English Dictionary as the originator of words 鈥� but as the OED has been revised, and as more 16th -century texts have been digitally searched, so the number of new words attributed to Shakespeare has 鈥榮ubstantially decreased鈥�.
The Shakespeare the authors give us is not an especially warm man. They point to an understandable absence of generous giving or concern for the less fortunate. In his will he left the poor of his birthplace, Stratford-upon-Avon, a derisory sum of cash, no bursaries, no scholarships, no endowments.
Everything else stayed in the family.
Not all of the myths are fallacious: in calling these beliefs 鈥渕yths鈥� we are less interested in stigmatizing them as imprudent or unsubstantiated than we are concerned to understand how they become ossified and block, rather than enable, our interpretation of Shakespeare's works.
Even the idea that he is more than ever impenetrable, always key to any 鈥楽hakespeare was really someone else鈥� theory, is point-blank false.
And as the authors themselves declare: 鈥淭he temptation for a book of this sort is to focus on Shakespeare's biography. Shakespeare biography is a fruitful field for myths, from the youthful deer-poaching episode (described by Nicholas Rowe at the beginning of the eighteenth century) to the technicalities of the marriage (attested by the record books) to the missing years (documented nowhere). Inevitably, we have included some of these examples but we have tried, wherever we can, to move the discussion on to the plays and poems themselves. Whereas most of our myths involve layers of interpretative accretion between us and the Elizabethan period, reading Shakespeare's works themselves can shortcut some of this narrative padding.鈥�
December 8, 2019
賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 毓賳 亘毓囟 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 丕賱卮丕卅毓丞 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賱賰賳賴 賲賱卅 亘丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 亘氐賵乇丞 鬲亘毓孬 毓賱賶 丕賱爻兀賲 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲
July 20, 2017
Maguire and Smith's book refers to myths in the sense of series of beliefs rather than things which are untrue. They explore 30 areas of interest around Shakespeare including he was not well-educated, he hated his wife, we don't know much about his life and the, evergreen, did he write the works attributed to him and explore each one in a contained short essay. It's very readable as well as learned and would be good for those who know a little about Shakespeare, a lot about Shakespeare or sit somewhere in the middle.
October 28, 2019
#兀卮赖乇冲30冲禺乇丕賮丞冲毓賳冲卮賰爻亘賷乇
#賱賵乇賷冲賲丕噩賵丕賷乇
#廿賷賲丕冲爻賲賷孬
毓丿丿 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 : 290
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱爻丕丿爻 賵丕賱孬賲丕賳賵賳 賱毓丕賲 2019
賷鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 孬賱丕孬賷賳 賲賯丕賱丞賸 賲丿乇賵爻丞 亘毓賳丕賷丞 毓賳 丨賷丕丞 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賲賮賳丿丞賸 兀賵 賲丐賰丿丞 兀卮賴乇 丕賱兀賯丕賵賷賱 毓賳賴貙 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱亘丨賵孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賮賷 丨乇賰丞 丕賱兀丿亘 賵丕賱賲爻乇丨 鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯亘丞. 賵賱賲 鬲賰賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱禺乇丕賮丕鬲 禺丕乇噩丞 毓賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賰賲丕 賷鬲噩賱賶 賱賮賰乇 丕賱賯丕乇卅 丨賷賳賲丕 賷爻賲毓 賲氐胤賱丨 禺乇丕賮丞貙 賱賰賳 賴賳丕賰 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲兀賵賷賱丕鬲 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞 賱丨賷丕丞 卮賰爻亘賷乇 丕賱鬲賷 賳丕賯囟鬲 丕賱賵丕賯毓 爻賵丕亍賸 賰丕賳 賱賲氐賱丨鬲賴 兀賵 囟丿賴丕. 賰禺乇丕賮丞 毓丿賲 賲賱丕卅賲丞 賲丐賱賮丕鬲賴 爻賷丕爻賷賸賾丕 兀賵 丕賱爻乇賯丕鬲 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賳丕氐 兀賵 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賲賳賮乇丿賸丕 兀賵 賲賯賵賱丞 兀賳賴 丕賱賰丕孬賵賱賷賰賷貙 賵兀賰孬乇 鬲毓賲賯賸賾丕 賳丨賵 胤亘賷毓丞 賳賴噩賴 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷 賰賲爻兀賱丞 賲胤丕亘賯鬲賴 賱兀氐賵賱 丕賱賲爻乇丨 丕賱廿賱賷夭丕亘賷孬賷 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱賲賱丕亘爻 賵丕賳毓丿丕賲 丕賱賲賳丕馗乇貙 賵賰鬲丕亘鬲賴 賱賱鬲乇丕噩賷丿賷丕 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 丕賱賰賵賲賷丿賷丕貙 賵賯丿 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賯丕賱 毓賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 賲賲賷夭賸丕 賲賳 丨賷孬 匕賰乇賴賲丕 賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲賺 毓丿丞 鬲賲 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賲鬲卮賰賱丞 賱丿賶 賯乇賾丕亍 賵丕賱賲胤賱毓賷賳 毓賱賶 兀丿亘 卮賰爻亘賷乇 丕賱賲賰鬲賵亘 賵丕賱賲噩爻丿 亘賳賴噩賺 賳賮爻賷賺賾 兀毓賲賯 賮賰丕賳鬲 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賯丕賱丞 兀噩賲賱 賲賯丕賱丞 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷. 賵丕鬲爻毓鬲 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲 賱鬲睾胤賷 毓賱賶 毓丿丞 兀賯丕賵賷賱 丕鬲氐賱鬲 兀賷囟賸賾丕 亘丨賷丕鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞貙 賲賳 夭賵丕噩賴 賵氐賷鬲賴 賵兀亘賳丕亍賴貙 賮噩丕亍 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 卮丕乇丨賸丕 丨賷丕鬲賴 賵賲賵囟丨賸丕 兀亘乇夭 賲毓丕賱賲賴丕 亘丕賱鬲賮氐賷賱貙 賵賱賲 賷賰賳 孬賯賷賱賸丕 賰賲丕 賷購爻丕亍 馗賳賸賾丕 亘賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲 亘賱 賰丕賳鬲 爻賱丕爻鬲賴 賲賲鬲毓丞 噩毓賱鬲賳賷 兀賯乇兀賴 亘噩賱爻丞 賵丕丨丿丞.
#廿賷賲丕賳冲亘賳賷冲氐禺乇
#賱賵乇賷冲賲丕噩賵丕賷乇
#廿賷賲丕冲爻賲賷孬
毓丿丿 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 : 290
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱爻丕丿爻 賵丕賱孬賲丕賳賵賳 賱毓丕賲 2019
賷鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 孬賱丕孬賷賳 賲賯丕賱丞賸 賲丿乇賵爻丞 亘毓賳丕賷丞 毓賳 丨賷丕丞 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賲賮賳丿丞賸 兀賵 賲丐賰丿丞 兀卮賴乇 丕賱兀賯丕賵賷賱 毓賳賴貙 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱亘丨賵孬 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賮賷 丨乇賰丞 丕賱兀丿亘 賵丕賱賲爻乇丨 鬲賱賰 丕賱丨賯亘丞. 賵賱賲 鬲賰賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱禺乇丕賮丕鬲 禺丕乇噩丞 毓賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賰賲丕 賷鬲噩賱賶 賱賮賰乇 丕賱賯丕乇卅 丨賷賳賲丕 賷爻賲毓 賲氐胤賱丨 禺乇丕賮丞貙 賱賰賳 賴賳丕賰 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲兀賵賷賱丕鬲 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞 賱丨賷丕丞 卮賰爻亘賷乇 丕賱鬲賷 賳丕賯囟鬲 丕賱賵丕賯毓 爻賵丕亍賸 賰丕賳 賱賲氐賱丨鬲賴 兀賵 囟丿賴丕. 賰禺乇丕賮丞 毓丿賲 賲賱丕卅賲丞 賲丐賱賮丕鬲賴 爻賷丕爻賷賸賾丕 兀賵 丕賱爻乇賯丕鬲 丕賱兀丿亘賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賳丕氐 兀賵 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賲賳賮乇丿賸丕 兀賵 賲賯賵賱丞 兀賳賴 丕賱賰丕孬賵賱賷賰賷貙 賵兀賰孬乇 鬲毓賲賯賸賾丕 賳丨賵 胤亘賷毓丞 賳賴噩賴 丕賱賲爻乇丨賷 賰賲爻兀賱丞 賲胤丕亘賯鬲賴 賱兀氐賵賱 丕賱賲爻乇丨 丕賱廿賱賷夭丕亘賷孬賷 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱賲賱丕亘爻 賵丕賳毓丿丕賲 丕賱賲賳丕馗乇貙 賵賰鬲丕亘鬲賴 賱賱鬲乇丕噩賷丿賷丕 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 丕賱賰賵賲賷丿賷丕貙 賵賯丿 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賯丕賱 毓賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賯丕乇賳丞 賲賲賷夭賸丕 賲賳 丨賷孬 匕賰乇賴賲丕 賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲賺 毓丿丞 鬲賲 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱鬲兀孬賷乇丕鬲 丕賱賲鬲卮賰賱丞 賱丿賶 賯乇賾丕亍 賵丕賱賲胤賱毓賷賳 毓賱賶 兀丿亘 卮賰爻亘賷乇 丕賱賲賰鬲賵亘 賵丕賱賲噩爻丿 亘賳賴噩賺 賳賮爻賷賺賾 兀毓賲賯 賮賰丕賳鬲 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賯丕賱丞 兀噩賲賱 賲賯丕賱丞 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷. 賵丕鬲爻毓鬲 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲 賱鬲睾胤賷 毓賱賶 毓丿丞 兀賯丕賵賷賱 丕鬲氐賱鬲 兀賷囟賸賾丕 亘丨賷丕鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞貙 賲賳 夭賵丕噩賴 賵氐賷鬲賴 賵兀亘賳丕亍賴貙 賮噩丕亍 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 卮丕乇丨賸丕 丨賷丕鬲賴 賵賲賵囟丨賸丕 兀亘乇夭 賲毓丕賱賲賴丕 亘丕賱鬲賮氐賷賱貙 賵賱賲 賷賰賳 孬賯賷賱賸丕 賰賲丕 賷購爻丕亍 馗賳賸賾丕 亘賰鬲亘 丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲 亘賱 賰丕賳鬲 爻賱丕爻鬲賴 賲賲鬲毓丞 噩毓賱鬲賳賷 兀賯乇兀賴 亘噩賱爻丞 賵丕丨丿丞.
#廿賷賲丕賳冲亘賳賷冲氐禺乇
February 28, 2021
Un saggio dedicato ai grandi miti su Shakespeare diviso in 30 capitoli.
In ogni capitolo le autrici affrontano uno dei grandi miti che circondano la figura di William Shakespeare, dal fatto che fosse lo scrittore pi霉 famoso del suo tempo, alla leggenda che dice che non rileggeva i suoi testi, dal fatto che le sue opere non avessero scenario, al tipo di pubblico per il quale scriveva.
Il risultato 猫 un testo denso di riferimenti e informazioni, interessante e decisamente arricchente anche se perde un p貌 di ritmo e di intensit脿 in alcuni passaggi.
In ogni capitolo le autrici affrontano uno dei grandi miti che circondano la figura di William Shakespeare, dal fatto che fosse lo scrittore pi霉 famoso del suo tempo, alla leggenda che dice che non rileggeva i suoi testi, dal fatto che le sue opere non avessero scenario, al tipo di pubblico per il quale scriveva.
Il risultato 猫 un testo denso di riferimenti e informazioni, interessante e decisamente arricchente anche se perde un p貌 di ritmo e di intensit脿 in alcuni passaggi.
January 5, 2019
The essays in this book average 4-5 pages, and each addresses a single question. In general, these essays are of great interest, and all exhibit a tremendous knowledge of Shakespeare and his context. A few of these essays address questions that seem very irrelevant (e.g., "Yorick's skull was real"), but most of them are excellent. The final chapter addresses the Shakespeare authorship issue, and the authors clearly feel the same weariness about the issue that I do.
November 8, 2024
What is so lovely about this book is that most of these ideas are things you have heard about Shakespeare and kind of accepted. What the angelic Smith and Maguire then do is expose these beliefs to the current knowledge we now have: many of them are guesses, some are simply wrong.
As with anything by either Emma Smith or Laurie Maguire, it keeps directing you back to the text with a new reading.
As with anything by either Emma Smith or Laurie Maguire, it keeps directing you back to the text with a new reading.
December 24, 2019
賱賵賱丕 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲胤賵賷賱 賵丕賱睾賵氐 賮賷 鬲賮丕氐賷賱 賰孬賷乇丞 睾賷乇 賴丕賲丞 賱丕爻鬲丨賯 丕賱禺賲爻 賳噩賵賲
June 17, 2021
賰鬲丕亘 賲賲賱
February 25, 2016
Maguire and Smith do a good job of complicating many "Myths" around Shakespeare--although it is important to note that many of the "myths" aren't factual statements, but more general sentiments about the author. While Maguire and Smith do some outright debunking, most of what is done is just "complicating" the "myth" because it was based on out-dated scholarship, Victorian or early 20th century theoretical concerns, or just cliches. In the end, while Maguire and Smith are perfectly readable while being very scholarly from entry-to-entry, the book still feels uneven. The essay on Shakespeare's authorship won't change most opinions nor does it have space to do so: that task requires a book-length treatment. Other topics, such as the relationship of "Shakespeare" to film, either need to be books or they need to be shortened, but the essay is just long enough to be tedious without being exhaustive. Furthermore, on Shakespeare's class concerns or his Catholicity, Maguire and Smith do not earn their outright dismissal with enough evidence to completely undo what are, to many including me, fairly sound arguments. Despite those concerns, these is an interesting book and an enjoyable read filled with facts and "complications."
June 15, 2016
This is such a fun book. It is marketed to a non-scholarly readership, yet the scholarship is there if pedagogically light. It clears up a lot of obvious nonsense such as who wrote Shakespeare's works and the claim that Shakespeare was a plagiarist, corrects claims that are unfortunately evergreen such as the Tempest being Shakespeare's farewell to the stage and the plays being timeless, and navigates some things that may not be myths, such as the sonnets being autobiographical and that Shakespeare did not travel.
The difficulty this book is that unless you read it carefully you may receive a false impression. Take for example that "myth" that his plays had no scenery. Well, if you go by what we mean by scenery today, that is more or less true. The slight indications of place used in early modern theaters are not the same, yet they existed. Just read the title of that one, and you may come away believing that Shakespeare's plays had scenery in the same way that modern plays have it. It is best to read this book for the answers are not always yes or no.
The difficulty this book is that unless you read it carefully you may receive a false impression. Take for example that "myth" that his plays had no scenery. Well, if you go by what we mean by scenery today, that is more or less true. The slight indications of place used in early modern theaters are not the same, yet they existed. Just read the title of that one, and you may come away believing that Shakespeare's plays had scenery in the same way that modern plays have it. It is best to read this book for the answers are not always yes or no.
March 5, 2018
賱丕 賷禺賮賷 毓賱賶 兀丨丿 賷毓乇賮賳賷 噩賷丿丕 兀賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賴賵 丕賱兀丿賷亘 丕賱睾乇亘賷 丕賱賲賮囟賱 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賵丕賳 賲爻乇丨賷丕鬲賴 賲孬賱 乇賵賲賷賵 賵噩賵賱賷賷鬲 賵賲丕賰亘孬 賵毓胤賷賱 賵乇賷鬲卮丕乇丿 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賵乇賷鬲卮丕乇丿 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賲賳 賲賮囟賱丕鬲賷 賳丕賴賷賰 毓賳 丕賳 賴丕賲賱鬲 賴賷 賲爻乇丨鬲賷 丕賱賲賮囟賱丞 毓賱賶 丕賱廿胤賱丕賯 賵丕毓鬲亘乇賴丕 兀丨丿 兀毓馗賲 丕賱丕亘丿丕毓丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 噩丕丿 亘賴丕 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱亘卮乇賷.
賱匕丕 賵亘賲丕 丕賳賳賷 賯丿 丕賳鬲賴賷鬲 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱睾丕賱亘賷丞 丕賱毓馗賲賷 賲賳 丕毓賲丕賱賴 賮亘丿兀鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賱賲乇丨賱丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賵賴賷 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賳賮爻賴.
賮賰鬲丕亘賳丕 賴匕丕 毓賳 兀卮賴乇 30 禺乇丕賮丞 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賵賷鬲賳丕賵賱賴丕 亘丕賱鬲丿賯賷賯 賵丕賱賮丨氐 賵丕賱亘丨孬 賵毓乇囟 丕賱乇丐賷 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賱廿孬亘丕鬲 氐丨丞 兀賵 禺胤兀 賴匕賴 丕賱禺乇丕賮丞.
兀賮囟賱 賲丕 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賳賴 賯丕賲 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 亘鬲睾胤賷丞 禺乇丕賮丕鬲 賲孬賱 丕賳賴 賱丕 賷賵噩丿 卮禺氐 丨賯賷賯賷 賷丿毓賷 亘賴匕丕 丕賱丕爻賲 賵丕賳賴 丕爻賲 賲爻鬲毓丕乇 賱卮丕毓乇 丌禺乇 賱賰賳賴 賯丕賲 亘鬲睾胤賷丞 賲禺鬲賱賮 噩賵丕賳亘 丨賷丕丞 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賵丕賱亘賳丕亍 丕賱丕丿亘賷 賲乇賵乇丕 亘丕賱鬲賵噩賴 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賵丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賳鬲賴丕亍 亘賲丿賷 賵賲賱丕亍賲鬲賴丕 賱賱鬲賳丕賵賱 毓賱賶 胤乇賯 丕賱毓乇囟 丕賱賮賳賷丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵賲丿賷 氐賱丕丨賷丞 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲賴 賮賷 丕賱氐賲賵丿 丕賲丕賲 丕賱夭賲賳.
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賵賲噩賴賵丿 賰亘賷乇 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱鬲丨賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賯丿賷乇 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱丕乇亘毓丞 賳噩賵賲 亘丿賵賳 鬲賮賰賷乇.
賱匕丕 賵亘賲丕 丕賳賳賷 賯丿 丕賳鬲賴賷鬲 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱睾丕賱亘賷丞 丕賱毓馗賲賷 賲賳 丕毓賲丕賱賴 賮亘丿兀鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賱賲乇丨賱丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賵賴賷 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賳賮爻賴.
賮賰鬲丕亘賳丕 賴匕丕 毓賳 兀卮賴乇 30 禺乇丕賮丞 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賵賷鬲賳丕賵賱賴丕 亘丕賱鬲丿賯賷賯 賵丕賱賮丨氐 賵丕賱亘丨孬 賵毓乇囟 丕賱乇丐賷 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賱廿孬亘丕鬲 氐丨丞 兀賵 禺胤兀 賴匕賴 丕賱禺乇丕賮丞.
兀賮囟賱 賲丕 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賳賴 賯丕賲 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 亘鬲睾胤賷丞 禺乇丕賮丕鬲 賲孬賱 丕賳賴 賱丕 賷賵噩丿 卮禺氐 丨賯賷賯賷 賷丿毓賷 亘賴匕丕 丕賱丕爻賲 賵丕賳賴 丕爻賲 賲爻鬲毓丕乇 賱卮丕毓乇 丌禺乇 賱賰賳賴 賯丕賲 亘鬲睾胤賷丞 賲禺鬲賱賮 噩賵丕賳亘 丨賷丕丞 卮賰爻亘賷乇 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賵丕賱亘賳丕亍 丕賱丕丿亘賷 賲乇賵乇丕 亘丕賱鬲賵噩賴 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 賵丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賳鬲賴丕亍 亘賲丿賷 賵賲賱丕亍賲鬲賴丕 賱賱鬲賳丕賵賱 毓賱賶 胤乇賯 丕賱毓乇囟 丕賱賮賳賷丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵賲丿賷 氐賱丕丨賷丞 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲賴 賮賷 丕賱氐賲賵丿 丕賲丕賲 丕賱夭賲賳.
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賵賲噩賴賵丿 賰亘賷乇 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱鬲丨賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賯丿賷乇 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱丕乇亘毓丞 賳噩賵賲 亘丿賵賳 鬲賮賰賷乇.
March 13, 2013
Like any serious books about Shakespeare, this book doesn't forward lavish or spectacular theories about Shakespeare- it just uses the facts we have in a serious way. Did Shakespeare hate his wife? Was he a Catholic? Was Yorick's skull real? The 30 myths explored range from serious to silly ones, and each one is discussed seriously.z Most of the time the author has no definitive "true" or "false" response to these myths but he does have a lot of data 麓which reshape our view of the playwright and his time. Very good work.
January 20, 2014
Maguire and Smith present an interesting cross-section of Shakespearean history and scholarship. The overall tone is reader-friendly and accessible. The individual essays make it an easy read, although some of the topics are curious. And, like most books concerning Shakespeare's authorship, it won't likely convince anyone to switch their allegiance from their favorite alternate author candidate. Still a decent read for any Shakespeare enthusiast.
March 28, 2013
Emma Smith, the wonderful Shakespearean co wrote this fascinating book by Laurie Maguire. It's full of illuminating ideas and examples of how Shakespeare created his effects. Clear, accessible and yet scholarly
January 29, 2016
La mia recensione qui:
November 13, 2018
賰鬲丕亘 賱胤賷賮 賷氐丨丨 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丕鬲 毓賳 卮賰爻亘賷乇
January 30, 2020
賰鬲丕亘 賲賱卅 亘鬲賮丕氐賷賱 賰孬賷乇丞 睾賷乇 賴丕賲丞
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.