Shakespeare S Opposites

Contrariety in the words, characters, themes, and ideologies of Shakespeare's works are studied as a means of expression and function of structure, showing that his use of paradox is rooted in Renaissance philosophy

Shakespeare and Spenser: Attractive Opposites is a much-needed volume that brings together ten original papers by the experts, on the relations between Spenser and Shakespeare. There has been much noteworthy work on the linguistic borrowings of Shakespeare from Spenser, but the subject has never before been treated systematically, and the linguistic borrowings lead to broader-scale borrowings and influences which are treated here. An additional feature of the book is that for the first time, a large bibliography of previous work is offered which will be of the greatest help to those who follow up the opportunities offered by this collection. Shakespeare and Spenser: Attractive Opposites presents new approaches, heralding a resurgence of interest in the relations between two of the greatest Renaissance English poets to a wider scholarly group and in a more systematic manner than before. This will be of interest to students and academics interested in Renaissance literature.

The Admiral's Men is the acting company that staged Christopher Marlowe's plays while its companion company was giving the first performances of Shakespeare. Unlike the Shakespeare company, there is plenty of evidence available telling us what the Admiral's company did and how it staged its plays. Not only do we know far more about the design of its two playhouses, the Rose and the Fortune, than we know of any other playhouse from the time, including the Globe, but we have Henslowe's Diary. This recorded everything the Admiral's company performed from 1594 to 1600 and after, what the company bought to stage its plays, who performed which parts, who wrote which plays and even how much they were paid. The first history to be written of the Admiral's Men, this book tells us not only a great deal about the company's own work, but also how the Shakespeare company operated.

This book is a much-needed volume that brings together ten original papers by the experts, on the relations between Spenser and Shakespeare. There has been much noteworthy work on the linguistic borrowings of Shakespeare from Spenser, but the subject has never before been treated systematically, and the linguistic borrowings lead to broader-scale borrowings and influences which are treated here. An additional feature of the book is that for the first time a large bibliography of previous work is offered which will be of the greatest help to those who follow up the opportunities offered by this collection. Shakespeare and Spenser: Attractive Opposites presents new approaches, heralding a resurgence of interest in the relations between two of the greatest Renaissance English poets to a wider scholarly group and in a more systematic manner than before. This will be of interest to Students and academics interested in Renaissance literature.

In the fall of 1598, the First Secretary of the United Italian Republic, the nigh-immortal Machiavelli sets out for England on a diplomatic mission, in hopes of enlisting Shakespeare in his grand enterprise. Then ensues a correspondence on Shakespeare's first Henriad, which moving to the second Henriad, intensifies, and come spring, as Shakespeare works on Henry V and as they grow close, Shakespeare invites Machiavelli to Stratford to converse face to face. But will it be eye to eye? From their lively engagement, thick with fell incensed thoughts, "the wiser sort" may discover both how much these mighty opposites--one the founder of modern political philosophy and the other the greatest modern poet--both agree and disagree, on how cities may prosper and souls may thrive. FELL INCENSED POINTS OF MIGHTY OPPOSITES "Everywhere today human life is judged guilty if it swims and innocent if it drowns." "Xenophon knew Socrates. Xenophon looked up to Socrates. You're no Xenophon." "... though tyrannical Richard III is repulsive to your audience, that only swaddles the insights in his witty use of Christian teachings to justify his crimes, to mock Christians, and to blaspheme God, from detection, and leaves them a foundling on the doorsteps of the few, and shields you, the only begetter." "No...evil is not always the best policy." "Richard II made tyrannical by "divine right"; Richard III made a tyrant by damnation from birth; Henry VI rendered contemptible by clerical education; and the people acquiescent to the tyrannical 'powers that be.' Could a more powerful case against Christianity be made than your Histories!" "Your 'comedies' ... so devoid of merriment. And your tragedies...none." "It is not true I recognize no noble failures. I recognized Cesare Borgia. His failure to unite Italy...and drive out the barbarians, was the noblest failure in modern times.... Only fortune defeated Cesare. As to tragedy, what is more tragic than Christianity?" "You say a lot about murder, how good it can be, but nothing about death. The men I put on stage, like the ones I know, like myself, think about death. Does something or nothing come after? We don't know, not for sure. We wish we did. And we think about it. It's there all the time. After a fit of anger, a rush of activity, an hour of love, after the day's labor, or the evening's festivity, there it is waiting for us. And that is why my characters always give a speech as they are dying." "Demand me nothing." "So apt for philosophy, were he not so unsure of truth."

The first purpose of this book is to provide new readings of many of Shakespeare's major plays, unhampered by bardolatry and, so far as possible, by critical preconceptions. Among the interpretations is an argument that contradictions found in Othello emerge ultimately from Shakespeare's inability to portray a developing heterosexual relationship in any of his plays; that King Lear operates by a technique of psychological and spiritual discontinuity that forces the audience beyond rational or common-sense awareness to the deeper levels of the play; that in Macbeth the hero is portrayed as killing his king not so much for any positive motive as out of an inability to find a reason not to do so; that in Timon of Athens and Coriolanus Shakespeare's judgement is fatally divided; and that in the late romances evil is too lightly treated for the plays to be seen as serious accounts of life. At the same time throughout the book the central theme is Shakespeare's preoccupation with dichotomy and division, a preoccupation that cannot be explained away by reference to his Renaissance or Jacobean milieu, but emerges from himself. It is the subject of many of his plays; it is at the heart of the means by which he produces his greatest dramatic work; and it is equally the source of his blind spots and failures. The changing forms in which it manifests itself throughout his dramas resolve into a coherent pattern of psychological development.

Instead of asserting any alleged rivalry between Marlowe and Shakespeare, Sawyer examines the literary reception of the two when the writers are placed in tandem during critical discourse or artistic production. Focusing on specific examples from the last 400 years, the study begins with Robert Greene’s comments in 1592 and ends with the post-9/11 and 7/7 era. The study not only looks at literary critics and their assessments, but also at playwrights such as Aphra Behn, novelists such as Anthony Burgess, and late twentieth-century movie and theatre directors. The work concludes by showing how the most recent outbreak of Marlowe as Shakespeare’s ghostwriter accelerates due to a climate of conspiracy, including “belief echoes,” which presently permeate our cultural and critical discourse.

Simon Palfrey offers a new way of understanding Shakespeare's playworlds, with piercingly original readings of language, scenes, and characters.