Studies in Shakespeare – serie

Taking a new approach to the metaphor of the political body, this book examines Shakespeare’s representation of that body as possessing epistemological faculties. The theater is one of these faculties, and is, therefore, essential to the health and survival of the Early Modern state. By depicting the theater as an essential faculty of the body politic, Shakespeare offers a defense of the theater against anti-theatrical critics. Students and teachers interested in the body and its representations in literature will find this text illuminating as will those scholars whose work focuses on knowledge, its relationship to the body, ways of knowing, and anti-theatrical prejudice.

«Bardolatry», that whimsical term referring to Shakespeare’s rise to canonical status as well as to his worshippers’ adulation, solidified within the theatrical discourses of the eighteenth century and the British Romantic era. Celestine Woo examines the era’s four most celebrated Shakespeare performers in London – David Garrick, John Philip Kemble, Sarah Siddons, and Edmund Kean – arguing that they broadened and altered the boundaries of Shakespearean discourse in specific ways, offering and modeling novel paradigms by which to apprehend Shakespeare, and thus contributing to the growth of bardolatry as a discursive phenomenon. Using Pierre Bourdieu as a model, Woo traces the development of Shakespearean discourse as a field of cultural production, shaped by these actors. By examining their disparate approaches to performing Shakespeare, she reveals that Shakespeare as an icon became commodified, politicized, gendered, and increasingly appropriated within literary and dramatic discourse as a result of the influences of these four performers. Her analysis deepens our understanding of the processes by which Shakespeare was institutionalized as a figure representing national character, human nature, and the breadth of human experience.

Although there are a number of book-length studies of rhetoric in Shakespeare’s plays, With What Persuasion discerns a distinctly Shakespearean ethics of the art of rhetoric in them. In this interdisciplinary book, Scott F. Crider draws upon the Aristotelian traditions of poetics, rhetoric, and ethics to show how Shakespeare addresses fundamental ethical questions that arise during the public and private rhetorical situations Shakespeare represents in his plays. Informed by the Greek, Roman, and English poetic and rhetorical traditions, With What Persuasion offers close readings of a selection of plays – Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Henry the 5th, All’s Well That Ends Well, Othello, Measure for Measure, and The Winter’s Tale – to answer universal questions about human speech and association, answers that refute a number of contemporary literary and rhetorical theory’s assumptions about language and power. Crider argues that this Shakespearean ethics could assist us in our own historical moment as we in the liberal, multicultural West try to refound, without coercion, ethical principles to bind us to one another.

Authorizing Shakespeare on Film and Television examines recent film and television transformations of William Shakespeare’s drama by focusing on the ways in which modern directors acknowledge and respond to the perceived authority of Shakespeare as author, text, cultural icon, theatrical tradition, and academic institution. This study explores two central questions. First, what efforts do directors make to justify their adaptations and assert an interpretive authority of their own? Second, how do those self-authorizing gestures impact upon the construction of gender, class, and ethnic identity within the filmed adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays? The chosen films and television series considered take a wide range of approaches to the adaptative process – some faithfully preserve the words of Shakespeare; others jettison the Early Modern language in favor of contemporary idiom; some recreate the geographic and historical specificity of the original plays, and others transplant the plot to fresh settings. The wealth of extra-textual material now available with film and television distribution and the numerous website tie-ins and interviews offer the critic a mine of material for accessing the ways in which directors perceive the looming Shakespearean shadow and justify their projects. Authorizing Shakespeare on Film and Television places these directorial claims alongside the film and television plotting and aesthetic to investigate how such authorizing gestures shape the presentation of gender, class, and ethnicity.

Shakespeare’s Tragedies Reviewed explores how the recognition of spectator interests by the playwright has determined the detailed character of Shakespeare tragedies. Utilizing Shakespeare’s European models and contemporaries, including Cinthio and Lope de Vega, and following forms such as Aristotle’s second, more popular style of tragedy (a double ending of punishment for the evil and honor for the good), Hugh Macrae Richmond elicits radical revision of traditional interpretations of the scripts. The analysis includes a major shift in emphasis from conventionally tragic concerns to a more varied blend of tones, characterizations, and situations, designed to hold spectator interest rather than to meet neoclassical standards of coherence, focus, and progression. This reinterpretation also bears on modern staging and directorial emphasis, challenging the relevance of traditional norms of tragedy to production of Renaissance drama. The stress shifts to plays’ counter-movements to tragic tones, and to scripts’ contrasting positive factors to common downbeat interpretations – such as the role of humor in King Lear and the significance of residual leadership in the tragedies as seen in the roles of Malcolm, Edgar, Cassio, and Octavius, as well as the broader progressions in such continuities as those within Shakespeare’s Roman world from Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra to Cymbeline. It becomes apparent that the authority of the spectator in such Shakespearean titles as What You Will and As You Like It may bear meaningfully on interpretation of more plays than just the comedies.