King Edward III King Edward III is increasingly thought to have been written in significant part by Shakespeare This landmark new edition by textual expert and General Editor of the Arden Shakespeare Richard Proudfo

  • Title: King Edward III
  • Author: William Shakespeare
  • ISBN: 9781903436387
  • Page: 250
  • Format: Paperback
  • King Edward III is increasingly thought to have been written in significant part by Shakespeare This landmark new edition by textual expert and General Editor of the Arden Shakespeare, Richard Proudfoot, offers a full account of the play s text and the evidence of Shakespeare s hand at work in it Fully annotated with on page notes and a lengthy critical introduction whicKing Edward III is increasingly thought to have been written in significant part by Shakespeare This landmark new edition by textual expert and General Editor of the Arden Shakespeare, Richard Proudfoot, offers a full account of the play s text and the evidence of Shakespeare s hand at work in it Fully annotated with on page notes and a lengthy critical introduction which also explores the play s production history and the impact of its historical context.

    Edward II of England Edward II was born in Caernarfon Castle in north Wales on April , less than a year after Edward I had conquered the region, and as a result is sometimes called Edward of Caernarfon The king probably chose the castle deliberately as the location for Edward s birth as it was an important symbolic location for the native Welsh, associated with Roman imperial history, and it formed the Edward VIII Edward VIII Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David June May was King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Empire, and Emperor of India, from January until his abdication on December the same year, after which he became the Duke of Windsor. Edward was the eldest son of King George V and Queen Mary. Edward IV Biography, Children, Facts Britannica Edward IV Edward IV, king of England from until October and again from April until his death in He was a leading participant in the Yorkist Lancastrian conflict known as the Wars of the Roses Learn about Edward IV s life and reign in this article.

    • Best Download [William Shakespeare] ↠ King Edward III || [Psychology Book] PDF ✓
      250 William Shakespeare
    • thumbnail Title: Best Download [William Shakespeare] ↠ King Edward III || [Psychology Book] PDF ✓
      Posted by:William Shakespeare
      Published :2018-011-25T15:43:23+00:00

    One thought on “King Edward III”

    1. If this play is indeed Shakespeare--and it seems at least a part of it is--it wins the award for worst history play, beating "King John" by at least a length and a half. Like "John," it is an episodic, shambling thing, but it has nothing half as good as the bastard Falconbridge to recommend it. Some of the verse, particularly in the Countess of Salisbury sequence, possesses a grace uncharacteristic of the play, and imagery which is felicitous if not memorable. In addition, there is a scene in wh [...]

    2. Wow. In its own way this is worse than Titus Andronicus. Less gruesome, and, unlike "Titus," the characters have plausible motivations, but this is so stunningly incoherent that it deserves some sort of special recognition. Oh, and an "English king" play where we are cheering for the French? Edward III, much like Titus, has enough sons that he regards them as utterly disposable -- never an attractive characteristic in a father.

    3. One of the Bard's apocrypha - the plays that didn't make the cut for the Folio, for whatever reason, and weren't captured in the early additions (as plays like Pericles and Two Noble Kinsmen were). Although now widely thought to be partly by Shakespeare, there's division of opinion about how much.I find Shakespeare authorship arguments hard to fathom sometimes, because when you get past the not-always-reliable text analysis, it usually boils down to "if it's not great, let's say it's not by Shak [...]

    4. Didn't know there was a Shakespeare's Edward III? I didn't either. I read this because I have a long-held ambition, which may or may not come to fruition, to read all of the history plays. I thought perhaps I would do it this spring in conjunction with John Julius Norwich's historical background survey Shakespeare's Kings, which treats Edward III as canonical.While reading this play, I thought a great deal about Arthur Phillips' superb 2011 novel, The Tragedy of Arthur, the second half of which [...]

    5. How much of "King Edward III" did Shakespeare actually write? There is no clear consensus, and it is only recently that critics and scholars even consider him a definitive author of even PART of this lumpy and misshapen play. If anything, Shakey appears to have contributed the seduction plotline, and possibly some of the monologues later in the play, but this is low-tier Shakespeare at best. Plots are seized on and then dropped, characters behave inconsistently, the poetry is second-rate and the [...]

    6. Reading this, I definitely got the hint of Shakespeare throughout it. Especially in the war scenes. Very much like him. The relationship with the Countess was also very Shakespeare, although I didn't think it was needed in the play since it was mentioned then never discussed again. Edward III's reign is one I'm not terribly familiar with, but it's a good prelude to the conflict England had with France with territory up through Mary I's reign.This edition is great. There are so many notes to help [...]

    7. It did have its moments (some of the dialogue between Prince Edward and Audley was rather moving, as well as the scenes between King Edward and the Countess of Salisbury), but on the whole it was a bit disappointing. The emotional complexity of the first act or two is transformed into a sort of jingoistic pageant, with the good guys (England) triumphing over the bad guys (France). One of Shakespeare's weakest plays (assuming Shakespeare did write at least some of it, that is). It's not bad, but [...]

    8. Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this apocryphal play is at least partly by Shakespeare, but you'll have to wait until I have more free time to run some analyses on it for evidence. The plot is quite different in nature from the rambling and episodic style of 2H6, but I guess the date would be closer to H5, which seems like a good parallel. Onward to more apocrypha!

    9. A collaboration with Thomas Kyd judging by stylistic analysis. The play, much like Henry VI Part One, is flawed in many respects, but Shakespeare's handling of the wooing scenes is mellifluous in its language.

    10. The introduction is hideous. This is important to say upfront. The Arden Shakespeare has made a great name for itself by including first-rate supplementary material; the third series (of which this play is a part) is particularly well known for its lengthy and thorough introductions. It is the reason to buy Arden, to be perfectly frank. There is a tradition of excellence (and consistent improvement) here. Which is perhaps why the introduction to “Edward III” is such a colossal disappointment [...]

    11. Edward III is an odd little play that feels disjointed but definitely not bad. It has been partly attributed to William Shakespeare, perhaps as much as 50% and as either revisionist of an original script or a true co-written work. In either part, Shakespeare is part of Edward III and so I read on.My reading and enjoyment of the play was probably aided by watching at production of it a few months back at The Shakespeare Tavern. I anticipated a performance I'd sit through in order to scratch it fr [...]

    12. Whether Shakespeare actually wrote all or part of this play, even the most expert of the Shakespeare experts will never know for sure, so my advice: skip the introduction, which is longer than the play itself, and tries to explain, in some almost incomprehensible way, why this play was probably written during Shakespeare's lifetime, which means he could have written it Or some of it Or none of it.Whether it was written by Shakespeare or not, the subject is one that the Brits of Shakespeare's day [...]

    13. Not included in my complete works of Shakespeare, I guess because it was only somewhat recently seen to be included among Shakespeare's writings (though I also read it is believed someone else helped write large portions, or possibly finish it). At any rate, I am preparing to read Shakespeare's great history plays so first I read King John, then Marlowe's Edward II and now this one. I say those others are great based on reputation. These so far have just been good. Edward III is not really memor [...]

    14. A play written in part by Shakespeare, but not in whole, “Edward III” is rarely found in published Shakespeare collections, even though theoretically it would slot nicely between “Richard II” at the start of the first Henriad histories cycle. But, like “King John”, which as a history chronologically before “Richard II” would hypothetically be a logical read before it, the lack of any real connection to the Henriad cycles means there’s no meaningful connections or reason to read [...]

    15. When I first started reading this play about a year ago, I thought that it was terrible and didn't even bother to finish it. Then my compulsive obsession to read the complete works of Shakespeare got the better of me and I started it again. This time I loved it. Life is strange like that. It has an unpardonable fault though. The whole seduction scene in the first act is quickly frustrated and goes nowhere. It seems Shakespeare changed his mind as to the plot halfway through.

    16. This play has recently been promoted to Shakespeare's canon because a thorough analysis shows that it is likely that it was a collaboration between Shakespeare and another playwright (Kyd). It appears that about 40% of the play can be attributed to Shakespeare. I wanted to read it now because I expect to see a performance of it next month. It will not be a favorite of mine; however, it was engaging enough to maintain my attention.

    17. I enjoyed this. There are some beautifully written lines, but there are some odd elements about the plot. I appreciated the detail and commentary of the Arden edition.

    18. I think this play is very underrated. I read in an hour or so. It was an easy but good read. The dialogues between King Edward III and the Countess of Salisbury and Edward and Audley are the best.

    19. Glimpses of Venus and Adonis and Henry VI, but overall rambling. Best part was when King Edward told his court that he wasn't especially concerned about his son because he had a lot more sons.

    20. I find the character of Edward III repugnant. He seeks to seduce a married woman; coerces her own father to solicit her on the king's behalf; changes his mind when he sees his son whose appearance reminds him of his wife, oh, and, right! he's married! A few minutes later, the king is again on the prowl. Later in battle, Edward ignores his soldier's pleas to rescue the prince in a tight skirmish with these callous words: If not[if his son doesn't survive], what remedy? we have more sons than one, [...]

    21. A little dull after Richard III--the heroes and villains weren't as compelling. I suppose it's mainly about duty and honour, the heroes doing what they considered to be the right thing at the time, and the villainst.

    22. Now I know I have read the Histories completely out of order, so perhaps if I had read this one in it's proper place (instead of very last, but I couldn't find it anywhere!) I would have appreciated it more. That said, I did like this play, it just isn't one of my favorites. Neither is it one that I loathe, it's fairly solidly in the middle. Right, so the play itself focuses on the titular Edward III of England, during whose reign the Scots were revolting (no, not that kind of revolting, the rev [...]

    23. Did Shakespeare even write this? There's a lot of evidence that says no, he didn't. Revised it, maybe. Who knows? Boo. Anyway, the King Edward/Countess storyline was fascinating, but not much else.

    24. History very interesting, King Edward change history with the English invasion at Calais in 1355. This time King Edward only 20 or maybe even only 19 year old but lead major battle. This is why it is one important king in Europe history and many great authors write about him. He in from top 10 important kings of Europe history. The books says that the king died on 21 June but I read from other authors it was 4th June and some wrote 7th June, not sure what is more historic accurate. I like King E [...]

    25. I feel incredibly arrogant giving a Shakespeare play a 2. But it has only recently been added to the canon and I have to wonder. While some of the prose is lyrical and does soar (only once in a while), the events and organization are bumpy. First part is about a king's passion for the "other woman," who then disappears into history. The Second part is about war. Perhaps the moral of the story is that a king must set aside personal desire and focus on war? Anyway, I just saw it performed this wee [...]

    26. I read this once before in The Disputed Plays It is a awkward play in that there is no dialogue as such. All the characters make speeches. It must have made performance very stilted. I'm not wonkish enough to have an expert opinion on the play's authorship. I accept it's S's. Acts I and II crackle with sexual tension and would be exciting to perform. The rest of the play loses considerable energy and would be hard to keep an audience engaged in, although there are enough speeches to stoke up pat [...]

    27. A very strange play. The Shakespeare has a wonderful lyricism and play of language at the service of witty repartee and an ethical discussion. The rest, Marlowe has been suggested and discredited as the author, Thomas Kyd has been suggested and not yet discredited in the scholarship I have seen, is about war. The, tentatively, Kyd portion is very good and competent work. The Shakespeare portions, however, are long, comprising a lot of this play. The failure of the two parts to mesh makes this se [...]

    28. 2.5 to 3. Simple yes the play pushes not your mind. yet are there some well placed shots? Yes. Mention of the vulning pelican and it's accompanying motto, "Quod in te est, prome" to bring forth what is in you amply harks to the play in it's starker moments. Along with a decent statement about death and fear elucidated by Audley, this work fleshed out promises more than the wilted leaf grasping crafts and wiles written for more than we might want or guess that we think we might need.

    29. It was not what I expected. Although, to be fair to Billy, what I was expecting was a horrible Pericles-esque thing (I did not like Pericles). This was surprisingly good--I mean, don't get me wrong, it's not Hamlet or Henry VI pt. 3 good. But it's good. You can read all of my feelings in my full review, at MyEntertainmentWorld.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *