Hide Fox, And All After
Does it mean 'I'll find you all later'? Hide fox is a game similar to 'hide and seek. In this scene Hamlet is pretending to be mad. He is playing mockingly with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and his "Hide fox, and all after" is a childish remark. As you say "Hide fox" is a game similar to "Hide and seek". This site proposes "ready or not, here I come" which seems to fit the context: Thanks a lot moustic! You must log in or sign up to reply here. I read this novel when it first came out so long ago I can't even remember if I finished it so take this review with a grain of salt.
No customer reviews
The author was sixteen when it was published. I would characterize it as a mishmash of seriousness by a teenager who wants to be taken seriously. It would not qualify as young adult fiction but its hard to really understand what the author's theme is or if he even knows what it is himself. Since he has gone on to write many more novels on serious subjects we can d I read this novel when it first came out so long ago I can't even remember if I finished it so take this review with a grain of salt. Since he has gone on to write many more novels on serious subjects we can draw a line back to this earliest novel and say it is about and by a disaffected youth.
The characters in his later novels have been survivors of trauma: Loneliness never seems to be one of their problems.
Hide Fox, and All After: What is Concealed in Shakespeare's Hamlet? - Free Online Library
The review of the pedophile novel by Joyce Carol Oates made it sound so depressing, I don't plan to read it. Linda Robins rated it liked it Jul 15, Denise Stacks rated it it was ok Feb 14, Alysia rated it did not like it Jun 11, Alejandro Teruel rated it liked it Aug 05, Lauren rated it it was ok Sep 28, Ambrish Bandalkul rated it liked it May 03, Mike rated it really liked it Oct 31, Open Road Media rated it it was amazing Jun 19, Peter Thomason rated it did not like it Dec 12, Beamish13 marked it as to-read Dec 08, Laura marked it as to-read Jun 03, Lauren marked it as to-read Aug 06, For centuries the Church had filled all the entertainment needs of the public at large.
These gave the people something to look forward to throughout the days and weeks of the year. With the Protestant Reformation, most of this came to an end. Such carryings-on were seen by the early reformers as papistical pandering to pagan disorder. Yule logs were banned——may poles torn down. For centuries certain inns in London and the larger towns had doubled as theatres when acting troupes came to town. With the loss of the Church calendar, people began to spend more time and more money in the theater inns, to the point where business entrepreneurs like James Burbage and his brother-in-law thought a building dedicated solely to plays might be able to support itself.
This they just barely managed to do until the mids when The Spanish Tragedy and Tamburlaine showed that with the right play and the right performers, significant profits could be made from the enthusiasm of an audience willing to pay its penny, not once, not twice, but whenever the play was performed.
As for the commercial press, the same scenario held, though on a considerably smaller scale, since pamphlet sales were limited to the reading public, which at that time was probably roughly five to ten percent of the population. And while a pamphlet might eventually reach readers, a play could reach thousands. According to Thomas Nashe, by , 10, people had seen Henry the Sixth. Later historians may have missed the significance of this revolution, but the Crown, the City and the Church certainly did not.
Throughout this period they made continuous and frantic efforts to stop or at least control their growth, and even to banish them altogether. But as a poet once put it: Point being, there simply were no commercial writers at the beginning of this revolution. There were scriveners who made their living acting as secretaries to the illiterate public at large, who, for a small fee would read to them the letters they received and write letters for them, but this trade was not an art.
In the end it was a small community of university-trained secretaries and tutors to the well-to-do that would provide the budding media with professional writers, but that did not happen until the very end of the century. As for the actors, until the s most performers had a trade that kept them going between holidays.
- Picknick: Die beliebtesten Rezepte (German Edition).
- Very British Problems: Making Life Awkward for Ourselves, One Rainy Day at a Time;
- Buy for others.
- ‘Hide Fox, and All After’!
- Railroads Triumphant: The Growth, Rejection, and Rebirth of a Vital American Force.
- I Love My Bike?
Until the professional writers began to appear in the early 17 th century——Jonson, Chapman, Daniel, Drayton, Dekker, Beaumont and Fletcher——who was doing the writing on which the actors and theater owners——and audiences——relied for their entertainment? This is a mystery of much greater proportions that just who wrote the Shakespeare canon. Who wrote these early pamphlets and plays? Who kick-started this literary revolution? If we go solely by the records, Shakespeare played no part in the production of these first commercial plays from the s.
Apart from the occasional one-timer like Udall or Wilson, for all of these we have authors for no more than 17 plays and for these, only four authors: Since pamphlets required names on the title page, we have a few of these, but for genuinely literary pamphlets, only two names stick out, Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe.
Revolutions are always created by groups. They may center around a single inspiring leader, but it requires a group to accomplish any set of common goals or to create an accepted standard. By the same token, great artists, who are almost always revolutionaries of a sort, do not create out of a vacuum.
Invariably they have colleagues and rivals, if not equal in genius, then close enough to stimulate them to reach for greater heights. And no artist finds a better, more stimulating, audience than that provided by his or her peers.
- Ángel Guerra (Anotado) (Spanish Edition).
- Exploring Web 2.0: Second Generation Interactive Tools!
- I Love My Bike!
- Hide Fox, and All After: What is Concealed in Shakespeare's Hamlet?.
- See a Problem?!
That we see no evidence of any connection between the artists who stand out from this period: Of course they did. Birds of a feather flock together. What does a bear do in the woods? Do we need an affadavit? And the fact that there is no evidence of what common sense demands——should tell us something else——namely that such a connection was hidden ——that concern with each other or time spent together was not something to spread about or refer to in print. Or when politicians from opposing parties get together in private to discuss a sensitive issue and neglect to inform the newspapers?
There were no paparazzi in those days. Not only was there no yellow journalism in those days, there was no journalism period. There was not just one fox in this game of hide and go seek, but several. Were they aware that they were creating a revolution? But what they were surely aware of was that as soon as the fox was caught the game would be over.
This was not a conspiracy, it was a game! To banish his fears of the horrors of an adult reality, Hamlet strives to return in his mind to a childhood world of play. At particular moments during the year, the English of all classes and callings donned costumes and masks and stepped out of their humdrum workaday world into a holiday world of fantasy ritual. This was part and parcel of the Church calendar as it had been pursued around the year from time immemorial. But, though they were loosely connected to Christian holidays, these festivals were not Christian in origin.
They had grown over the centuries out of pagan festivals, which themselves had grown during even earlier ages out of grim Stone Age rituals——rituals whose significance had been forgotten long before the Elizabethan era. The teasing and tormenting of authorities or obnoxious neighbors through satires, burning of effigies, breaking of windows, chanting of naughty jingles, which, combined with a hearty consumption of ale, could lead to real trouble, were sublimated and refined by Shakespeare into the vicarious tormenting of stage characters like Malvolio and Falstaff.
Thus were the crude animal energies that were so feared by the reformers sublimated into a the genteel theater event of the present. In other words, for the first decade of this revolution, the s, this uprush of expression through plays and pamphlets was done, most of it, in the age-old holiday spirit of merrymaking. Quashed by the evangelical reformers, now it was spilling over the ancient time boundaries that until then had kept it contained within the traditional holiday periods, much to the horror of the Church that had created the problem in the first place. In any case, these folks whose identities we are tracking did what they did in a spirit of good clean fun, or fun at least.
Brilliant minds met to create moments of exhilarating hilarity, the tensions and fears of the regime blown away in gusts of laughter, first among themselves at Court gatherings, then spreading to the public theaters and bookstalls. He must have seen what was coming, having given the last word of the play to the puritanical Malvolio: These young Court writers were not out to change the world, not at first.
Like kids in school, they were just out to have a good time and were not about to let anyone stop them. None of them are unknown to us. All are known to us today, at least for their reputations if not for their actual works. Most of them were courtiers. Courtiers were the only people in Elizabethan society with the leisure to play such games, games that, like cards, dice, dancing and singing madrigals, could only be played by a group.
They were also the only ones with an awareness of what was being done by their counterparts at the Italian courts, by Ariosto, Machiavelli, and Tasso. This is not the case only with Shakespeare, but with all but two of the major writers during this two. In my view, which is of course, subject to change with the arrival of new facts and insights, there were six major figures in this revolution that came from the Court community: Just as the history of the Trojan War requires the story of the combatants, their personalities, their goals and ambitions, and their relationships with each other, to understand this revolution of language, we must know the stories of the revolutionaries and of their relationships.
The proof is in the story. It was simply too small a community for any other scenario to be possible. Who were the proxies then, the so-called writers who lent or sold the use of their names so the Court writers could publish anonymously?
The men who, I believe, rented their names to the Court writers purely for cash or other forms of remuneration were: Other men for reasons of friendship lent their names for one or two publications: There may be others, but of these we can be fairly certain, for all of them show similar problems with their biographies and with the fact that the nature of the works that they are supposed to have written does not match the nature of their lives as revealed in their biographies.
Scholars tend to be a serious lot. The second most important was responsible for most of the Spenser canon, the Lyly plays, and the Nashe canon. And a third is responsible for the John Webster canon and perhaps a handful of plays attributed to other, later writers. That they are grouped this way can be shown, I believe, first, by noting similarities of approach, basic habits of expression, and unchanging personal concerns that transcend all changes in style and genre.