The completed thesis itself may be viewed online via UQÀM’s Archipel archive
http://www.archipel.uqam.ca/1678/1/D1665.pdf

This connects the reader to our first attempts at analyzing said data.
The completed thesis itself may be viewed online via UQÀM’s Archipel archive http://www.archipel.uqam.ca/1678/1/D1665.pdf

This site was dedicated to our graphic analysis of Shakespeare’s FIRST FOLIO of 1623; its purpose was to envision in as simple and compelling a manner as possible the technical performative structure (or formal outline) of each FOLIO play. Each play-graph represented a virtual “cue to cue” of its respective play by displaying the ENTRANCES and EXITS of characters in their order of appearance along the TLN (“Through Line Numbering”) lineation system developed by Charlton Hinman for his NORTON FACSIMILE OF THE FIRST FOLIO OF SHAKESPEARE (1968; 2nd ed. 1996).

GraphicData

This connects the reader to all the TLN numerical data upon which the graphs are based.

TextualData

This connects the reader to our first attempts at analyzing said data. The completed thesis itself may be viewed online via UQÀM’s Archipel archive http://www.archipel.uqam.ca/1678/1/D1665.pdf

A Window On Shakespeares Dramaturgy

This site is dedicated to the graphic analysis of Shakespeare’s FIRST FOLIO of 1623; its purpose being to envision in as simple and compelling a manner as possible the technical performative structure (or formal outline) of each FOLIO play. Each play-graph represents a virtual “cue to cue” of its respective play by displaying the ENTRANCES and EXITS of characters in their order of appearance along the TLN (“Through Line Numbering”) lineation system developed by Charlton Hinman for his NORTON FACSIMILE OF THE FIRST FOLIO OF SHAKESPEARE (1968; 2nd ed. 1996).

Textual Data

A Window On Shakespeares Dramaturgy

This site is dedicated to the graphic analysis of Shakespeare’s FIRST FOLIO of 1623; Its purpose being to envision in as simple and compelling a manner as possible the technical performative structure (or formal outline) of each FOLIO play. Each play-graph represents a virtual “cue to cue” of its respective play by displaying the ENTRANCES and EXITS of characters in their order of appearance along the TLN (“Through Line Numbering”) lineation system developed by Charlton Hinman for his NORTON FACSIMILE OF THE FIRST FOLIO OF SHAKESPEARE (1968; 2nd ed. 1996).

Graphic Data

\\!!!A Window on Shakespeares Dramaturgy?

This site is dedicated to the graphic analysis of Shakespeare’s FIRST FOLIO of 1623; Its purpose being to envision in as simple and compelling a manner as possible the technical performative structure (or formal outline) of each FOLIO play. Each play-graph represents a virtual “cue to cue” of its respective play by displaying the ENTRANCES and EXITS of characters in their order of appearance along the TLN (“Through Line Numbering”) lineation system developed by Charlton Hinman for his NORTON FACSIMILE OF THE FIRST FOLIO OF SHAKESPEARE (1968; 2nd ed. 1996).

This page, then, provides links to the raw (TLN) DATA of each play-graph. The plays are arranged according to the FOLIO’s three play categories of COMEDIES, HISTORIES, & TRAGEDIES. The order of plays exactly reproduces that of the FOLIO. For each individual play, we provide two links:

• A first link (for ex. The Tempest) gives access to the data extracted from the FOLIO. This link also provides NOTES on chronology, structure and the purported nature of the FOLIO’s underlying copy of the play . These notes are based on a variety of sources but two in particular should be mentionned: G. Blakemore Evans’ & J.M.M. Tobins’ RIVERSIDE SHAKESPEARE (2nd ed. 1997), and Stanley Wells’ & Gary Taylor’s WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: A TEXTUAL COMPANION (Oxford, 1987; reprinted by Norton, 1997).

• A second link (for ex. http://zboing.ca/shakespeare/svg/Comedies/TheTempest) gives access to the graph itself. PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS (as well as some significant SECONDARY or MINOR characters) are listed on the graph’s vertical Y AXIS, while their ENTRANCES and EXITS appear along the horizontal X AXIS representing the play’s FOLIO lineation (in the case of THE TEMPEST, 2342 TLN lines). Small crosses (†) indicate when characters are deceased. We indicate ACT BREAKS either by solid or broken vertical lines. When the FOLIO provides the act breaks, the lines are solid; when it does not, we then relied either on contemporaneous QUARTOS (if available) or a subsequent editions to establish these breaks, but their lines are then broken.

An added feature, which provides a further perspective on the plays, is our displaying METATHEATRICAL devices such as PLAYS-WITHIN-THE-PLAYS (which appear as vertical FRAMES in the graphs) and DISGUISED CHARACTERS (which appear as smaller horizontal FRAMES around individual characters). For instance, in THE TEMPEST the “Masque of Juno” (4.1.59–138sd / TLN 1707 to 1806) is framed as a Play-within-the-play, while the character of ARIEL who briefly appears disguised as a “Harpy “ (3.3.52sd −82sd / TLN 1583 to1616) is, likewise, indicated as such on the graph.

It is our hope that these graphic analyses may provide — both individually and as a whole — a pragmatic window on the working evolution of Shakespeare’s dramaturgy, as well as a view on his performer’s “sense of theatre” .

Stéphane Zarov/ Stéphane Volet

The Comedies

The Histories

The Tragedies

This site is dedicated to the graphic analysis of Shakespeare’s FIRST FOLIO of 1623; its purpose being to envision in as simple and compelling a manner as possible the technical performative structure (or formal outline) of each FOLIO play. Each play-graph represents a virtual “cue to cue” of its respective play by displaying the ENTRANCES and EXITS of characters in their order of appearance along the TLN (“Through Line Numbering”) lineation system developed by Charlton Hinman for his NORTON FACSIMILE OF THE FIRST FOLIO OF SHAKESPEARE (1968; 2nd ed. 1996).

CollectifHamlet

Williams Window

A Window on Shakespeares Dramaturgy?

This site is dedicated to the graphic analysis of Shakespeare’s FIRST FOLIO of 1623; Its purpose being to envision in as simple and compelling a manner as possible the technical performative structure (or formal outline) of each FOLIO play. Each play-graph represents a virtual “cue to cue” of its respective play by displaying the ENTRANCES and EXITS of characters in their order of appearance along the TLN (“Through Line Numbering”) lineation system developed by Charlton Hinman for his NORTON FACSIMILE OF THE FIRST FOLIO OF SHAKESPEARE (1968; 2nd ed. 1996).

This page, then, provides links to the raw (TLN) DATA of each play-graph. The plays are arranged according to the FOLIO’s three play categories of COMEDIES, HISTORIES, & TRAGEDIES. The order of plays exactly reproduces that of the FOLIO. For each individual play, we provide two links:

• A first link (for ex. The Tempest) gives access to the data extracted from the FOLIO. This link also provides NOTES on chronology, structure and the purported nature of the FOLIO’s underlying copy of the play . These notes are based on a variety of sources but two in particular should be mentionned: G. Blakemore Evans’ & J.M.M. Tobins’ RIVERSIDE SHAKESPEARE (2nd ed. 1997), and Stanley Wells’ & Gary Taylor’s WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: A TEXTUAL COMPANION (Oxford, 1987; reprinted by Norton, 1997).

• A second link (for ex. http://zboing.ca/shakespeare/svg/Comedies/TheTempest) gives access to the graph itself. PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS (as well as some significant SECONDARY or MINOR characters) are listed on the graph’s vertical Y AXIS, while their ENTRANCES and EXITS appear along the horizontal X AXIS representing the play’s FOLIO lineation (in the case of THE TEMPEST, 2342 TLN lines). Small crosses (†) indicate when characters are deceased. We indicate ACT BREAKS either by solid or broken vertical lines. When the FOLIO provides the act breaks, the lines are solid; when it does not, we then relied either on contemporaneous QUARTOS (if available) or a subsequent editions to establish these breaks, but their lines are then broken.

An added feature, which provides a further perspective on the plays, is our displaying METATHEATRICAL devices such as PLAYS-WITHIN-THE-PLAYS (which appear as vertical FRAMES in the graphs) and DISGUISED CHARACTERS (which appear as smaller horizontal FRAMES around individual characters). For instance, in THE TEMPEST the “Masque of Juno” (4.1.59–138sd / TLN 1707 to 1806) is framed as a Play-within-the-play, while the character of ARIEL who briefly appears disguised as a “Harpy “ (3.3.52sd −82sd / TLN 1583 to1616) is, likewise, indicated as such on the graph.

It is our hope that these graphic analyses may provide — both individually and as a whole — a pragmatic window on the working evolution of Shakespeare’s dramaturgy, as well as a view on his performer’s “sense of theatre” .

Stéphane Zarov/ Stéphane Volet

The Comedies

The Histories

The Tragedies

Graphic Data

A Concordance of Artistic Terms Inthe First Folio

Thesis Introduction

Textual Data

A Concordance of Theatrical Terms in the First Folio

A Concordance of Artistic Terms Inthe First Folio

A second version (October 2006) completes the graphic analysis and begins the work of interpretation but stands short of summation. The three scrolls were therein (re)expressed as a single fold-out graph.

Looking on His Picture

The three scrolls were contained in a wooden box (which also doubled as viewing mechanism) together with a document that provided commentaries, summaries and brief analyses of the scrolls’ data (which it also reprised according to the Folio’s categories and order of plays).

A second version (October 2006) completes the graphic analysis and begins the work of interpretation but stands short of summation. The three scrolls are therein (re)expressed as a single fold-out graph.

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains material that was developed in the context of a project entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE THEATRE? It sought to gather and “show” in as direct and compelling a manner as possible most instances (whether scenic or textual) of artistic self-reflexivity (i.e. of metatheatre) in the dramatic works of William Shakespeare.

A first version (February 2005) expressed the passage from data collection to graphic analysis by presenting the material chronologically in three scrolls. A first scroll displayed all manifest “scenic” occurences of metatheatre (or of theatre in the theatre) in the course of Shakespeare’s playwrighting carreer; while a second scroll showed all explicit “textual” references to the practice of theatre itself (such as a character saying to another “play your part”); and a third scroll displayed all textual references to artistic/mimetic representation (“imitate the sunne”, “counterfeit presentment”, “Lear’s shadow”).

The three scrolls were contained in a wooden box (which also doubled as viewing mechanism) together with a document (Williams Window Version 1) that provided commentaries, summaries and brief analyses of the scrolls’ data (which it also reprised according to the Folio’s categories and order of plays).

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains material that was developed in the context of the inter-arts programme “Études & Pratiques des Arts” (UQAM). The project was entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE THEATRE? and sought to gather and “show” in as direct and compelling a manner as possible all instances of metatheatre (or of artistic self-reflexivity) in the dramatic works of William Shakespeare.

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains material that was developed in the context of UQAM’s inter-arts programme “Études & Pratiques des Arts”. The project was entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE THEATRE? and sought to gather and “show” in as direct and compelling a manner as possible all instances of metatheatre (or of artistic self-reflexivity) in the dramatic works of William Shakespeare.

The three scrolls were held in a wooden box (which also doubled as their viewing mechanism) together with a document (Williams Window Version 1) that reprised the information contained in the scrolls according to the Folio’s categories and order of plays.

A second version (October 2006) completes the graphic analysis and begins the work of interpretation (Williams Window Version 2) but stands short of summation. The three scrolls are therein (re)expressed as a single fold-out graph.

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains material that was developed in the context of UQAM’s inter-arts programme “Études & Pratiques des Arts”. Our project was entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE THEATRE? and sought to gather and “show” in as direct and compelling a manner as possible all instances of metatheatre (or of artistic self-reflexivity) in the dramatic works of William Shakespeare.

A first version (February 2005) expressed the passage from data collection to graphic analysis by presenting the material chronologically, as three scrolls. A first scroll displayed all manifest or “staged” occurences of metatheatre (or of theatre in the theatre) in the course of Shakespeare’s playwrighting carreer; while a second scroll showed all explicit “textual” references to the practice of theatre itself (such as a character saying to another “play your part”); and a third scroll displayed all textual references to artistic/mimetic representation (“counterfeit presentment”, “Lear’s shadow”).

The three scrolls were held in a wooden box (which also doubled as their viewing mechanism) together with a document (version1) that reprised the information contained in the scrolls according to the Folio’s categories and order of plays.

A second version (October 2006) completes the graphic analysis and begins the work of interpretation (version2) but stands short of summation. The three scrolls are therein (re)expressed as a single fold-out graph.

Looking on His Picture

Their Exits and Their Entrances

Final Summary 1

A Crie of Players

Final Summary 2

Final Summary 3?

Well the Beginning That is Dead and Buried

Introduction: Keeping His Word?

Chapter I: Their Exitsandtheir Entrances?

Chapter II: aCrieOfPlayers

Chapter III: The Painted Word

Conclusion: Well the Beginning That is Dead and Buried.

\\

Conclusion: Well the Beginning That is Dead and Buried

Conclusion: Well the Beginning That is Dead and Buried.

Final Summary 1

Final Summary 2

Final Summary 3?

Final Summary 1

Final Summary 2

Final Summary 3?

Looking on His Picture

Draft Conclusion:

The Painted Word

Their Exits and Their Entrances

The Sense of Theatre

Keeping His Word

Their Exitsand their Entrances

A Crie of Players

The Painted Word

Well, The Beginning That Is Dead And Buried.

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains material that was developed in the context of Stéphane Zarov’s doctoral thesis (at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) under the supervision of André-Gilles Bourassa.

Introduction: Keeping His Word?

Chapter I: Their Exitsandtheir Entrances?

Chapter II: aCrieOfPlayers

Chapter III: The Painted Word

Conclusion: Well the Beginning That is Dead and Buried.

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains work that was developed in the context of Stéphane Zarov’s doctoral thesis (at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) on the subject of Shakespeare’s metatheatricality. The thesis was entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE’S THEATRE? It was supervised by André-Gilles Bourassa (UQAM) and Paul Yachnin (Mc Gill University). The thirty-six play-graphs (which ascertain in a visual manner Shakespeare’s use of two metatheatrical devices: play-within-the-play and disguise) make up the thesis’ first chapter. Whereas the 2nd and 3rd chapters are composed of two sets of concordances: the first set concerns Shakespeare’s use of Theatrical terms (such as Act, Scene, Cue, Prompt, etc.); the second his use of Artistic terms or terms related to mimetic representation ( Art, Counterfeit, Picture, Shadow, etc.). The thesis’ contents are available through the links listed below.

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains work that was developed in the context of Stéphane Zarov’s doctoral thesis (at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) on the subject of Shakespeare’s metatheatricality. The thesis was entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE’S THEATRE? It was supervised by André-Gilles Bourassa (UQAM) and Paul Yachnin (Mc Gill University). The thirty-six play-graphs (which ascertain in a visual manner Shakespeare’s use of two metatheatrical devices: play-within-the-play and disguise) make up the thesis’ first chapter. Whereas the 2nd and 3rd chapters are composed of two sets of concordances: one of Shakespeare’s use of Theatrical terms (such as Act, Scene, Cue, Prompt, etc.); the other of his use of Artistic terms or terms related to mimetic representation ( Art, Counterfeit, Picture, Shadow, etc.). The thesis’ contents are available through the links listed below.

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains work that was developed in the context of Stéphane Zarov’s doctoral thesis (at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) on the subject of Shakespeare’s metatheatricality. The thesis was entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE’S THEATRE? It was supervised by André-Gilles Bourassa (UQAM) and Paul Yachnin (Mc Gill University). The thirty-six play-graphs (which ascertain in a visual manner Shakespeare’s use of two metatheatrical devices: play-within-the-play and disguise) make up the thesis’ first chapter. Whereas the 2nd and 3rd chapters are composed of two sets of concordances: one of Shakespeare’s use of Theatrical terms (such as Act, Scene, Cue, Prompt, etc.); the other of his use of Artistic terms or terms related to mimetic representation ( Art, Counterfeit, Picture, Shadow, etc.).

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains work that was developped in the context of Stéphane Zarov’s doctoral thesis (at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) on the subject of Shakespeare’s metatheatricality. The thesis was entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE’S THEATRE? and was supervised by André-Gilles Bourassa (UQAM) and Paul Yachnin (Mc Gill University). The thirty-six play-graphs (which visually ascertain Shakespeare’s use of two metatheatrical devices: play-within-the-play and disguise) make up the thesis’ first chapter. Whereas the 2nd and 3rd chapters are composed of two sets of concordances: one on Shakespeare’s use of Theatrical terms (such as Act, Scene, Cue, Prompt, etc.); the other on his use of Artistic terms or terms related to mimetic representation ( Art, Counterfeit, Picture, Shadow, etc.).

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains work that was developped in the context of Stéphane Zarov’s doctoral thesis (at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) on the subject of Shakespeare’s metatheatricality. The thesis was entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE’S THEATRE? and was supervised by André-Gilles Bourassa (UQAM) and Paul Yachnin (Mc Gill University). The thirty-six play-graphs (which visually ascertain Shakespeare’s use of two metatheatrical devices: play-within-the-play and disguise) make up the thesis’ first chapter. Whereas the 2nd and 3rd chapter are composed of two sets of concordances: one on Shakespeare’s use of Theatrical terms (such as Act, Scene, Cue, Prompt, etc.); the other on his use of Artistic terms or terms related to mimetic representation ( Art, Counterfeit, Picture, Shadow, etc.).

GRAPHING SHAKESPEARE contains work that was developped in the context of Stéphane Zarov’s doctoral thesis (at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) on the subject of Shakespeare’s metatheatricality. The thesis was entitled WILLIAM’S WINDOW or HOW TRANSPARENT WAS SHAKESPEARE’S THEATRE? and was supervised by André-Gilles Bourassa (UQAM) and Paul Yachnin (McGill? University). The thirty-six play-graphs (which visually ascertain Shakespeare’s use of two metatheatrical devices: play-within-the-play and disguise) make up the thesis’ first chapter. Whereas the 2nd and 3rd chapter are composed of two sets of concordances: one on Shakespeare’s use of Theatrical terms (such as Act, Scene, Cue, Prompt, etc.); the other on his use of Artistic terms or terms related to mimetic representation ( Art, Counterfeit, Picture, Shadow, etc.).

Le Resume

Notre étude porte sur le métathéâtre de Shakespeare. Métathéâtre dont l’un des principaux effets esthétiques serait cette mise-en-abyme du processus dramatique lui-même (où la représentation se met elle-même en représentation).Comme notre sous-titre l’indique, nous tâchons d’établir combien le théâtre de Shakespeare était métathéâtral par le biais notamment de son degré d’auto-réflexivité représentative ou sa “transparence” (pour les théoriciens de l’art, son “opacité”).

Cette veduta sur Shakespeare, en tant qu’analyse interne d’une partie importante de son œuvre dramatique, nous permet d’affirmer finalement que le théâtre de Shakespeare était probablement des plus transparents.

Cette veduta sur Shakespeare, en tant qu’analyse interne d’une partie importante de l’œuvre dramatique de Shakespeare, nous permet d’affirmer finalement que le théâtre de Shakespeare était probablement des plus transparents.

Les pages qui suivent rendent compte (en anglais, hélas) de trois lectures du Folio, chacune d’entre-elles ayant pour but d’extraire autant d’exemples que possible d’un certain type de transparence. La première lecture (chapitre 1) porte sur les engins métathéâtraux en tant que tels (pièces-dans-la-pièce et déguisements) et résulte en un catalogue visuel de leurs occurrences à l’intérieur de la structure même des pièces. La seconde lecture (chapitre 2) répertorie toutes les répliques faisant référence au théâtre, et la troisième (chapitre 3) toutes celles portant sur l’art (ou la représentation artistique). Le catalogue du premier chapitre, et les deux répertoires des chapitres suivants préservent l’ordre des pièces ainsi que les catégories du Folio. Leurs données, cependant, sont reproduites à nouveau, “chronologiquement” cette fois, dans les trois rouleaux qui accompagnent ce codex.

Notre étude porte sur le métathéâtre de Shakespeare. Métathéâtre dont l’un des principaux effets esthétiques serait cette mise-en-abyme du processus dramatique lui-même (où la représentation se met elle-même en représentation).Comme notre sous-titre l’indique, nous tâchons d’établir combien le théâtre de Shakespeare était métathéâtral par le biais notamment de cette auto-réflexivité représentative ou sa “transparence” (pour les théoriciens de l’art, son “opacité”).

RÉSUMÉ

Notre étude porte sur le métathéâtre de Shakespeare. Métathéâtre dont l’un des principaux effets esthétiques serait cette mise-en-abyme du processus dramatique lui-même (où la représentation se met elle-même en représentation).Comme notre sous-titre l’indique, nous tâchons d’établir combien le théâtre de Shakespeare était métathéâtral par le biais notamment de cette auto-réflexivité représentative ou sa transparence (pour les théoriciens de l’art, son opacité).

Les pages qui suivent rendent compte (en anglais, hélas) de trois lectures du Folio, chacune d’entre-elles ayant pour but d’extraire autant d’exemples que possible d’un certain type de transparence. La première lecture (chapitre 1) porte sur les engins métathéâtraux en tant que tels (pièces-dans-la-pièce et déguisements) et résulte en un catalogue visuel de leurs occurrences à l’intérieur de la structure même des pièces. La seconde lecture (chapitre 2) répertorie toutes les répliques faisant référence au théâtre, et la troisième (chapitre 3) toutes celles portant sur l’art (ou la représentation artistique). Le catalogue du premier chapitre, et les deux répertoires des chapitres suivants préservent l’ordre des pièces ainsi que les catégories du Folio. Leurs données, cependant, sont reproduites chronologiquement dans les trois rouleaux qui accompagnent ce codex.

Cette étude d’analyse interne d’une partie importante de l’œuvre dramatique de Shakespeare, nous permet d’affirmer finalement que le théâtre de Shakespeare était probablement des plus transparents.

William’s Window se traduirait probablement ainsi “veduta sur William [Shakespeare]”. Car il s’agit bien d’une ouverture pratiquée, sinon dans un tableau, du moins dans un livre: le Premier Folio de 1623. Contenant à lui seul trente-six des trente-huit pièces attribuées à Shakespeare, ce livre est certainement l’édition princeps des études Shakespeariennes.

Notre étude porte sur le métathéâtre de Shakespeare. Métathéâtre dont l’un des principaux effets esthétiques serait cette mise-en-abyme du processus dramatique lui-même (où la représentation se met elle-même en représentation). Comme notre sous-titre l’indique, nous tâchons d’établir combien le théâtre de Shakespeare était métathéâtrale par le biais de cette auto-réflexivité représentative ou sa transparence (pour les théoriciens de l’art, son opacité).

The First Chapter

The Conclusion

\\

The Third Chapter

\\

The Prolegomena

The Second Chapter

Prolegomena

Prolegomena

“Finding something new, true, and useful to say about Shakespeare is a task so formidable that one can only wonder why so many keen and eager spirits compete for the privilege of attempting it.”
Frank Kermode

“Then I began to think that this was perhaps the best reason for going to see this part of the world, that it was so over-visited it was haunted”
Paul Theroux

The particularity of inter-arts doctoral programs (such as UQAM’s Études & pratiques des arts) is not only to better understand and articulate the junction between artistic theory & practice, it is also to encourage the open and free exchange of tools, approaches and techniques between various artistic fields and disciplines. The purpose of such doubling practice is perhaps to shed some light on those elements that are shared between all the arts: namely the creative process itself, or the aesthetic spirit of an age.

As its title (and presentation) suggests, William’s Window is most decidedly a prospect, in the sense of being (quite literally) a “perspective” or “point of view”. It is a prospect on a particular author, William Shakespeare (1564–1616), the bulk of whose writings was meant to be staged (i.e. seen and heard as opposed to being simply read). Shakespeare’s scripts were, at least partially, scores in the musical sense, since they map-out textually events involving character’s and voices occurring in time. That our work represent — graphically or visually — this essential and yet invisible condition of time in Shakespeare’s texts was perhaps the key underlying methodological question we sought to resolve. For William’s Window, itself, is nothing more than an attempt at a quantitative study of Shakespeare’s metatheatre through the thirty-six plays of the First Folio of 1623. As its subtitle suggests, we sought to do this simply by verifying the degree to which Shakespeare’s theatre was transparent, which is to say the degree to which the very means of dramatic representation were foregrounded and made manifest in performance.

An art historian, such as Louis Marin, would speak of opacity as opposed to transparency. Because when a painting’s materials & technique are somehow emphasized over what the painting depicts, then the viewer’s awareness is rather on how skillfully the pigment was applied to its surface. Hence, the surface itself is rendered opaque. But when this same aesthetic effect occurs in the course of a theatrical performance, then its spectator is made aware of an event developing in real time and in a real space. The Theatre — with its players and playgoers, its stage and auditorium — does not, then, become opaque (though some aspect of it, such as its language, certainly might), rather the whole process becomes transparent.

Materially, our thesis is a compendium of verifiable instances of theatrical or, rather, metatheatrical transparency. It therefore provides the exact location and number of plays-within-the-plays and disguised characters, as well as the location and number of textual (i.e. spoken) references to theatre, art, imitation, and painting. All of the data was drawn from Charlton Hinman’s Norton Facsimile of Shakespeare’s First Folio (2nd ed. 1996) whose Through-Line-Numbering system (TLN) made its gathering and subsequent graphic analysis possible.

The data itself is delivered twice (actually “thrice” if we take in consideration this site): the first time, in the codex where it is arranged in the exact order and according to the three play categories (Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies) of the First Folio itself; and a second time, in the three rolls (Roll #1 Performative Stucture, Roll #2 In Terms of Theatre, Roll #3 In Terms of Art) which provide the visual summary, or graphic conclusion of our thesis (as well as a compelling answer to its question).

Hence the codex is almost a counterfeit reference work, since it is designed to allow for cross-referencing of the play-by-play data in a more amenable manner than the rolls. For the rolls arrangement of the plays is not that of the Folio, rather, it is chronological (and therefore speculative). In short, the Rolls mimic an imaginary Shakespearean time-line, whereas this codex mimics the Codex (i.e. the First Folio).

S/Z

The Prolegomena

The Introduction