1 Shakespeare, the Critics, and Humanism 1

N OTES

1 Shakespeare, the Critics, and Humanism 1 . Virgil Heltzel, for example, in his “Introduction,” to Haly Heron’s The Kayes of Counsaile, A Newe Discourse of Morall Philosophie of 1579 (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1954), p. xv, describes the work as “bringing grave and sober moral philosophy home to men’s business and bosoms.” 2 . W i l l i a m B a l d w i n , A Treatise of Morall Philosophie . . . enlarged by Thomas Palfreyman , 20th ed. (London: Thomas Snodham, [?]1620), in Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints (Gainesville, Florida, 1967), with an introduction by Robert Hood Bowers. For the editions, see STC 1475–1640, Vol. I, 2nd ed., 1986, Nos. 1253 to 1269; and STC, 1641–1700, 2nd ed., Vol. I, 1972, Nos. 548, 1620. Also see Bowers, “Introduction,” pp. v–vi. For the purposes of the present work, I will refer to the treatise as Baldwin’s rather than Baldwin- Palfreyman’s. The volume appears as “augmented” or “enlarged” by Palfreyman only with the fifth edition of 1555 (STC 1255.5) and the 1620 edition (first of the two in that year) says it is “the sixth time inlarged” by him but there has been no comparative study of what was originally Baldwin’s and what was Palfreyman’s and what the successive “enlargements” entailed. Baldwin’s treatise, along with Thomas Crewe’s The Nosegay of Morall Philosophie , for example, are purported sayings and quotations from a great number of scattered Ancient and more recent writers, but they are organized into running dialogues or commentaries designed to express the compiler’s point of view rather than to transmit faith- fully the thought of the original writer. 3 . Philippe de Mornay, A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion . . . Begunne to be translated into English by Sir Philip Sidney Knight, and at his request finished by Arthur Golding, London: Thomas Cadman, 1587, in Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints (New York: Delmar, 1976), with an introduction by F. J. Sypher. 140 Notes

The original French edition, De la vé rit é de la religion chré stienne , was published in Antwerp in 1581. The later English editions were published in 1592, 1604, and 1617: Sypher, “Introduction,” p. xv. 4 . T z a c h i Z a m i r , Double Vision: Moral Philosophy and Shakespearean Drama (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), p. xii. Among others: Alan Hobson, Full Circle, Shakespeare and Moral Development (Barnes and Noble: London, 1972); Roy Battenhouse, Shakespearean Tragedy: Its Art and Christian Premises (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969); with much pertinence, in spite of its concentration on Italy, Daniel A. Lines, Aristotle’s Ethics in the Italian Renaissance (ca. 1300–1650), The Universities and the Problem of Moral Education (Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002); and Stephen Darwell, The British Moralists and the Internal ‘Ought’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 5 . R o y W. B a t t e n h o u s e , Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great: A Study in Renaissance Moral Philosophy (Nashville: Vanderbilt, 1966), p. 12. 6 . P e t e r C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome (London: Edward Blount and Will Ashley, n.d. [before 1612]), No. 315 in The English Experience facsimile reproduction series (Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., De Capo Press, 1971). The original, De La Sagesse , by Pierre Charron, was published in Bordeaux in 1601. 7 . G e o r g e H a k e w i l l , The Vanitie of the Eye (Oxford: Joseph Barnes, 3rd ed. 1615 [1st ed. 1608]), p. 52. 8 . Anne Barton, “Introduction,” Love’s Labour Lost, The Riverside Shakespeare: The Complete Works, 2nd ed., general and textual editor G. Blakemore Evans, with the assistance of J. J. Tobin (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997), p. 209. Subsequent references to commentators in the introductions to this volume will be to this edition. 9 . P i e r r e d e L a P r i m a u d a y e , The French Academie, translated with dedication by T. Bowes (London: Edmond Bollifant, 1586), in the Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprints No. 112, Hildesham: George Verlag, 1972. The original edition L’Acad é mie francoise was published in 1577. 1 0. S t u a r t G i l l e s p i e , Shakespeare’s Books, A Dictionary of Shakespeare’s Sources (London and New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone Press, 2001), p. 277 and Arthur F. Kinney, Lies Like Truth, Shakespeare, Macbeth, and the Cultural Moment (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 2001), pp. 191–192, passim. 11 . Robin Headlam Wells, Shakespeare’s Humanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 4, 28, 83; William Notes 141

M. Hamlin, Tragedy and Scepticism in Shakespeare’s England (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp. 73–75, passim. 12 . Ken Jackson and Arthur F. Marotti, “Introduction,” Shakespeare and Religion: Early Modern and Postmodern Perspectives (Notre Dame, ID: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011), p. 1. 13 . Jackson and Marotti, Shakespeare and Religion , p. 2. 1 4. E . M . W. T i l l y a r d , The Elizabethan World Picture (London: Chatto and Windus, 1943), p. 6; G. Wilson Knight, The Crown of Life (London: Methuen and Co., 1948), pp. 90–91; J. Dover Wilson, The Essential Shakespeare, A Biographical Adventure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952 [1st ed. 1932]), pp. 15–17. 1 5. G r a h a m B r a d s h a w , Misrepresentations, Shakespeare and the Materialists (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 3–4. 1 6. W i l l i a m S h a k e s p e a r e , The Complete Works , general ed. Alfred Harbage (Harmondsworth and New York: Penguin Books Inc., 1956), 12th printing 1969, pp. 1018, 1369; Stephen Orgell and A. R. Braummuller, eds., The Complete Pelican Shakespeare, 2nd ed. (Middlesex: Penguin Putnam Inc., 2002), pp. 730, 1392. 17 . For Bradshaw’s plaint on the subject, Misrepresentations , pp. 1–2. Of the differences among cultural materialists and on the future of cultural materialism, two books bearing the same title, After Theory, the first by Thomas Doherty (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996) and the second by Terry Eagleton (New York: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group, 2003). 1 8. A . D . N u t t a l l , Shakespeare the Thinker (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 9–10; Stanley Cavell, Disowning Knowledge in Seven Plays of Shakespeare (updated edition) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 1–3, 41, passim; Headlam Wells, Shakespeare’s Humanism , pp. 6–7, 30, passim. 19 . Bowers, “Introduction,” Baldwin, Treatise of Morall Philosophie, p. vii. Bowers writes also that Plato and Aristotle could “readily be considered Fathers of the Church because of the absorption of many of their tenets.” For Seneca’s influence, Gordon Braden, Renaissance Tragedy and the Senecan Tradition (New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1985), pp. 2, 182, passim. 20 . Jackson and Marotti, Shakespeare and Religion , p. 3. 2 1. B a l d w i n , Treatise , Chapter 2, “Of the three parts of Philosophie,” pp. 2[a–b], and Chapter 3, “Of the beginning of Morall Philosophie,” p. 2[b]. Charles B. Schmitt writes of the continuing influence of moral philosophy in Shakespeare’s time, “the Aristotelian writings 142 Notes

on moral philosophy continued to exert a dominating influence through at least the middle of the seventeenth century, in spite of renewed attention being given to Platonic, Stoic, Sceptic, and other sources from antiquity,” The Aristotelian Tradition and Renaissance Universities (London: Variorum Reprints, 1984), VII, p. 88. 2 2. B r a d s h a w , Misrepresentations , pp. 22–23, on the contention between “essentialist humanism” and “culturalist materialism.” Also H. R. Coursen, Macbeth, A Guide to the Play (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997), p. 52. 2 3. N u t t a l , Shakespeare the Thinker, pp. 23–24; Cavell, Disowning Knowledge , p. xiv, passim; Bradshaw, Misrepresentations , pp. 31–32. 24 . Jackson and Marotti, Shakespeare and Religion , p. 3. 2 5. N u t t a l l , Shakespeare the Thinker , pp. 9–10, 24. 26 . Michael Wood, Shakespeare (New York: Basic Books, Perseus Book Group, 2003), p. 76. 2 7. F r a n k K e r m o d e , The Age of Shakespeare (New York: Modern Library, 2004), p. 39. 2 8. J o h n S p e e d , T h e History of Great Britaine Under the Conquest of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, Normans (London, 1611), X. 15, the passage reproduced by E. K. Chambers in William Shakespeare, A Study of Facts and Problems [1930], 2 Vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), Vol. II, pp. 217–218; also Richard Davies’s manuscript memoranda in the Corpus Christie College Library, Oxford, reproduced in Vol. II, pp. 256–257. 29 . David N. Beauregard, Catholic Theology in Shakespeare’s Plays (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2008), pp. 21, 24. For a discussion of Shakespeare’s Catholicism : Carol Curt Enos, Shakespeare and the Catholic Religion (Pittsburgh, PA: Dorrance Publishing, 2000), pp. 75, 102–103. 30 . David Scott Kastan, A Will to Believe: Shakespeare and Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 33–35, passim. 31 . Anthony Holden, William Shakespeare: The Man behind the Genius (London and Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1999), p. 328. 32 . Joseph Pearce, The Quest for Shakespeare (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2008), p. 170. 33 . Richard Wilson, Secret Shakespeare (Manchester University Press, 2004), p. 24, passim; Claire Asquith, Shadowplay (New York: Public Affairs, 2005), pp. 20, 30–31, 201, passim; Peter Milward, The Catholicism of Shakespeare’s Plays (Southampton: Saint Austin Press, 2000), p. 124. Notes 143

34 . Millicent Bell, “Preface,” Shakespeare’s Tragic Skepticism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), p. xi, writes: “Criticism has tended to overlook the apparent inconsistencies, gaps, and contradictions in Shakespeare’s tragedies which I see not only as faults of craft but as Shakespeare’s poetic-dramatic version of reality and expressions of a skeptic viewpoint.” But Lionel Basney in “Is a Christian Perspective on Shakespeare Productive and/or Necessary,” Shakespeare and the Christian Tradition, ed. E. Beatrice Batson (Lewiston, ME and Queenston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994), p. 21, argues that there is a “Christian scepticism” as well as “sceptical criticism”. 3 5. G r a h a m B r a d s h a w , Shakespeare’s Scepticism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), p. xi Benjamin Bertram, The Time is Out of Joint: Scepticism in Shakespeare’s England (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2004), pp. 14–18. 36 . Cavell, Disowning Knowledge, p. 18. 3 7. H a m l i n , Tragedy and Scepticism , p. 143. 3 8. J o n a t h a n D o l l i m o r e , Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1985), p. vii. Also pp. 4 and 10 for the transcendence of a text and the transcendence of human nature in “idealist” criticism. 39 . On the fusion of Christian Tradition and Greek classical thought, Hans von Campenhausen: “Indé niablement les Pè res ont su, les premiers, unir à jamais l’h é ritage antique à la tradition chr é tienne et cr é er ainsi les bases de la civilisation spirituelle de l’Occident,” Les Pè res grecs , trans. O. Marbach (Paris : É ditions de l’Orante, 1969), p. 11, from Griechische Kirchenv ä ter , Stuttgart : W. Kohlammer Verlag, 1955; also, Arthur F. Kinney, Shakespeare and Congnition: Aristotle’s Legacy and Shakespearean Drama (New York and London: Routledge, 2006), p. 3. 40 . Charles Trinkhaus has written: “Man’s dignity lay in his creation in the image and likeness of God, which could be interpreted as meaning either that it was man’s destiny to transcend the limitations of his image-likeness and to ascend to eventual deification by a progress toward perfect assimilation of image and model, or that man thought, felt, and acted in a godlike manner in his dom- ination, utilization, guidance, and reconstruction of the world of sub-human nature,” The Scope of Renaissance Humanism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983), p. 357. 41 . Charles B. Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 15. 144 Notes

4 2. C h a r r o n , Wisdome, “Preface,” Sig. A2. 4 3. C h a r r o n , Wisdome , Book I, Chapter 2, “The first and general dis- tinction of Man,” p. 10. 4 4. A r i s t o t l e , Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, 7, and Book VII, 1, intro. Sarah Brodie, trans. Christopher Rowe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 100–101, 189–190. 45 . Simon Yee, “Aristotle’s Push for Happiness,” Recollecting Philosophy: Essays on Shakespeare and Philosophy (Vancouver: Emerald Knight Publishing, 2007), p. 43. 4 6. J i l l K r a y e E d . , The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. xv. 4 7. B a l d w i n , Treatise , Book I, Chapter 2 “Of the three parts of Philosophie,” p. 2[a]. 4 8. A r i s t o t l e , Nicomachean Ethics , Book I, 1, 2, and 6, pp. 95–96, 98–100; Augustine of Hippo, Faith, Hope, and Charity: Enchiridion De Fide Spe et Caritate, Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. III, trans. Louis A. Arand (New York and Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, [?1947]), Nos. 12–13, pp. 19–21; and Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3 vols., trans. Fathers of the Dominican Province (London: Burns and Oates, 1947), First Part, Q. 48, Art. 1, Replies to Objections 1 to 4, Vol. I, pp. 248–249. 4 9. C h a r r o n , Wisdome, Sig. A2. 50 . Basney, “Christian Perspective,” pp. 25, 33–35. 5 1. B a t t e n h o u s e , Shakespearean Tragedy , p. ix. 5 2. W i l l i a m S h a k e s p e a r e , King Lear, V.iii. 244–245, The Riverside Shakespeare: The Complete Works, 2nd ed., general and textual editor G. Blakemore Evans, with the assistance of J. J. Tobin (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997), p. 1343. Subsequent references to Shakespeare’s works will be entirely to this edition. 53 . Stephen Greenblatt, Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 123–125. 5 4. I n Richard III, the choice is flamboyant in psychological com- pensation, “since I cannot prove a lover / To entertain these fair well-spoken days, / I am determined to prove a villain” (I.i. 28–30). In Titus Andronicus , Aaron the Moor’s choice of evil is deliberate as he engages himself in personal social justice, “O how this villainy / Doth fat me with the very thoughts of it! / Let fools do good, and fair men call for grace, / Aaron will have his soul black as his face” (III.ii. 202–205). In Othello , Iago incites himself to political revenge that has nothing to Notes 145

do with sex by deliberately believing in the mere rumor that Othello has slept with his wife, “I hate the Moor, / And it is thought abroad that ‘twixt my sheets / [H’as] done my office. I know not if’t be true, / But I, for some suspicion in that kind, / Will do as if for surety” (I.iii. 386–396). In “Introduction,” Practicing New Historicism (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 4, Susan Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt write that even in the early seventeenth century one could not “rewrite Montaigne in order to make him sound like Thomas Aquinas” and they are undoubtedly correct. And of course the same can be said of any attempt to turn Shakespeare into Aquinas today, but a sentence from Summa Theologica describes to perfection the source of the deliberate committal of Shakespeare’s above characters to evil: “Good and evil are not constitutive differences except in morals, which receive their species from the end, which is the object of the will, the source of all morality,” First Part, Q. 48, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2, Vol. I, p. 249. 55 . For the influence of classical thinking on European drama in the sixteenth century and of Aristotle’s Poetics on Shakespeare, among others, see Battenhouse, Shakespearean Tragedy, pp. 183–185, 192–193; T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespeare’s Five-Act Structure (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963), pp. 264–283, and Arthur F. Kinney, Shakespeare and Cognition: Aristotle’s Legacy and Shakespearean Drama (New York and London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 29, 32, 79, 130–131. 56 . Dollimore, for example, argues that what he calls “idealist criticism” has in recent times “often . . . become preoccupied with the tragic sense of life as one which recuperated the vision as absence , which celebrated not man’s transcendent consciousness, but his will to endure and to know why transcendence was itself an illusion,” Political Shakespeare , p. 4. 5 7. D . F . B r a t c h e l l , Shakespearean Tragedy (London and New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 1. Also, Heather Dubrow, “Twentieth- Century Shakespeare Criticism,” The Riverside Shakespeare: The Complete Works, 2nd ed., general and textual editor G. Blakemore Evans, with the assistance of J. J. Tobin (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997), pp. 36–37, 52; and Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, “Introduction: Issues and Approaches,” Essays on Theory, History and Interpretation, Harvard English Studies 14 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), pp. 1–3. 146 Notes

58 . Jackson and Marotti, “Those who use modern philosophy and postmodern theology to interpret Shakespeare attempt to use Shakespearean texts to think through issues that have contemporary urgency, thus, in a sense, assuming that it is possible to see Shakespeare addressing perennial theological and philosophical problems that unite his time with ours,” Shakespeare and Religion, p. 2. Also inferred of King Lear by G. R. Hibbard, “ King Lear: A Retrospect 1939–1979,” Shakespeare Survey , 33 (1980), p. 10. 59 . Gallagher and Greenblatt, Practicing New Historicism , pp. 3, 9. 60 . Charles G. Nauert, Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. vii. 6 1. B e l l , “ P r e f a c e , ” Shakespeare’s Tragic Scepticism, p. x, writes that Shakespeare “seems to have shared with Montaigne, his near- contemporary, not only general doubts of what had long been assumed about the universe and mankind but also doubt concerning our own ability of our power to conceive and conclude anything.” For the “fascination with the flux of subjectivity that Montaigne and Shakespeare display,” see Hugh Grady, Shakespeare, Machiavelli, and Montaigne (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 124–125. For Montaigne on faith and reason, see Don Cameron Allen, Doubt’s Boundless Sea, Scepticism and Faith in the Renaissance (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1964), pp. 84–85. 62 . Jeffrey Johnson, “The Essay,” Chapter 19 in The Oxford Handbook of John Donne, ed. Jeanne Shami, Dennis Flynn, and Thomas Hester (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 265. 63 . Discussed by Charles Trinkaus in Scope of Renaissance Humanism, p. 352; Paul Oscar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, ed. Michael Mooney (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), pp. 22–26; and Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renaissance, pp. 3–8, 83–85. 64 . Charles Trinkaus, Renaissance Transformations of Late Medieval Thought (Aldershot, Brookfield: Ashgate Variorum, 1999), IX, p. 453, and also in his Scope of Renaissance Humanism, p. 359; Kristeller, Renaissance Thought , p. 172. 6 5. K r i s t e l l e r , Renaissance Thought , pp. 183–190, who writes, “the immortality of the soul was felt to be a metaphysical projection of that individual life, an experience which was the centre of attention for Renaissance scholars and writers” (p. 183); also, Trinkaus, Scope of Renaissance Humanism, pp. 29, 359. 6 6. D e M o r n a y , Trewnesse, p. 257. Notes 147

6 7. T h o m a s W r i g h t , The Passions of the Minde in Generall (London, 1601), the facsimile reprint of the fifth edition of 1630, with an introduction by Thomas O. Sloan (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971), p. 300. Subsequent references and quotations are to this edition. Sloan writes, “Five editions of Wright’s work are extant: 1601, 1604, 1620, 1621 and 1630. Although the present edition reproduces the text from the 1630 edition, it is . . . modelled on the 1604 edition. The differences between the last four editions are insignificant compared to the differences between any one of them and the 1601 edition”, p. xlvi. 6 8. D e M o r n a y , Trewnesse, I. xxii-xxiii, p. 61. 69 . In his discussion of the “Philosophers, or Heathen,” Baldwin writes, “therefore I thought it good before I came to their Precepts, to shew their opinion concerning religion that it might be knowne what they believed of God, of themselves, and of his works: all which they themselves call philosophy. . . . the Philosophers of whom I treate . . . knew by the search of Nature that there was but one God,” Treatise , p. 40 rv. 7 0. C i c e r o , De Natura Deorum Academica, trans. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library (London and Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd. and Harvard University Press, 1956), I. i, pp. 3 and 5; I. xxii-xxiii, p. 61; II. i–ii, pp. 125 and 127. 7 1. A r i s t o t l e , Nicomachean Ethics , I. 2, p. 95: “If then there is some end in our practical projects that we wish for because of it, and we do not choose everything because of something else . . . it is clear that this will be the good, i.e., the chief good. So in relation to life, too, will knowing it have great weight, and like archers with a target would we be more successful in hitting the point we need to hit if we had this knowledge.” 7 2. C i c e r o , De Natura Deorum, I. xvi, p. 43; I. xviii, p. 49, and I. xxx, p. 81. For de Mornay’s discussion of the subject, “That the Gods worshipped by the heathen, were men consecrated or canonyzed to posteritie,” Trewnesse , Chapter 22, p. 378. 7 3. G r e e n b l a t t , Shakespearean Negotiations , pp. 6–7. 7 4. N u t t a l l , Shakespeare the Thinker , p. 17. 7 5. H a k e w i l l , The Vanitie of the Eye, p. 52; Hamlin , Tragedy and Scepticism , p. 38. 76 . Robin Headlam Wells, Shakespeare on Masculinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 218. 77 . Amos Edelheit, Ficino, Pico and Savonarola: The Evolution of Humanist Theology 1461/2–1498 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 148 Notes

p. 235. On the same subject, Trinkaus, Scope of Renaissance Humanism , p. 354: “Theologically and philosophically, man’s dignity [in Renaissance humanism] derives from the character and purpose of his creation and the resulting position and role this gave man in the universe, from the freedom and capacity to ascend to the divine, conditions inherent in the image of God in which he was created and restored to man in the Incarntion.” 78 . The literature is vast. One approach: Daniel R. Gross, “Myths are typically narrative about supernatural beings or events in some unspecified period of time (sometimes called mythic time), involving such themes as the creation of the world or of human beings (creation myths), death and the afterlife, and renewal of the earth. Myths can be distinguished from folktales and legends in terms of formal differences or content but most of these comments about myth apply equally to all three forms,” in Discovering Anthropology (Mountain View, CA, London, and Toronto: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1992), pp. 67–68; also, Martin S. Day, The Many Meanings of Myth (Lanham, MD, New York, and London: University Press of America, 1984), pp. 2–3, 95; Charles F. Kielkopf, “Logic, Liberation, Myth and Metaphysics,” Myth and Philosophy, Vol. XLV: Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1971), pp. 43–45. 7 9. K a r e n A r m s t r o n g , A Short History of Myth (Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2005), p. 16. 8 0. D a y , Many Meanings of Myth, p. 6. 81 . William G. Doty, Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1986), p. 9. 82 . Bartholomaeus Anglicus, “Liber Secundus, De Angelis,” Chapter 5, “How Angells be compared to materiall things,” Batman Uppon Bartholome, His Booke De Proprietatibus Rerum [thirteenth century] translated into English by John of Trevisa [fourteenth century], ed. Stephen Batman (London, 1582), facsimile reproduction (Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1976), p. 5[a ]. 83 . In the Chiesa San Luigi dei Francesi in Rome.

2 Metaphysics as the Way Things Are: King John and Hamlet 1 . Thomas Bowes, “To . . . Master John Barne,” in de La Primau- daye, The French Academie, translated with dedication by T. Bowes Notes 149

(London: Edmond Bollifant, 1586), in the Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprints No. 112 (Hildesham: George Verlag, 1972), Sig. ii v. 2 . See Frank Kermode, Shakespeare’s Language (London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press, 2000), pp. 4–5; and G. L. Brook, The Language of Shakespeare (London: Andre Deutsch, 1976), pp. 62–63. 3 . Richard Sherry, A treatise of schemes and Tropes (London: J. Day, 1550), p. 83, a translation of Erasmus’s De Civilitate Morum Puerilium. 4 . G e o r g e P u t t e n h a m , The Arte of English Poesie (London: R. Field, 1589), p. 123. 5 . W i l l i a m F u l k e , A Most Pleasant Prospect . . . Meteors [1563] (London: W. Leake, 1602), p. 4v . 6 . T i m o t h y B r i g h t, A Treatise of Melancholy. Containing the causes thereof [1st ed., T. Vautrollier, 1586] (2nd ed., London: J. Windet, 1586), p. 58. 7 . T h o m a s W r i g h t , The Passions of the Minde in Generall (London, 1601), the facsimile reprint of the fifth edition of 1630, with an introduction by Thomas O. Sloan (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971), p. 300. 8 . J o h n D o n n e , Pseudo-Martyr , Ed. Anthony Raspa (Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993), pp. 97, 141. 9 . 2011, directed by Terrence Malick. 1 0. S a m u e l J o h n s o n , A Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1755), in the facsimile edition produced by AMS Press (New York, 1967), Sig. 8K. 1 1. A r i s t o t l e , Metaphysics, Book A 1, trans. with commentaries and glossary by Hippocrates G. Apostle (Bloomington and London: Indiana State University Press, 1966), pp. 23–25. Plato, Timaeus in Plato with an English Translation, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. VII (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952), pp. 83–84; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , Part I, Question 76, Article 1, Vol. I, trans. Fathers of the Dominican Province, 3 vols. (London: Burns and Oates, 1947), pp. 370–371; Bartholomaeus Anglicus, “Liber Decimus, De Materia et Forma,” Chapter 2 “Of Forme,” Batman Uppon Bartholome, His Booke De Proprietatibus Rerum [thirteenth century] translated into English by John of Trevisa [fourteenth century], ed. Stephen Batman (London, 1582), facsimile reproduction (Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1976), p. 153 [ a,b] 12 . Jurgen Schafer, Ed., “Introduction,” Bartholomaeus Anglicus, p. vi. 13 . Bartholomaeus, Chapter 2 “Of Forme,” De Proprietatibus, p. 153 [a ]. Also Philippe de Mornay, A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the 150 Notes

Christian Religion . . . Begunne to be translated into English by Sir Philip Sidney Knight, and at his request finished by Arthur Golding (London: Thomas Cadman, 1587), Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with introduction by F. J. Sypher (New York: Delmar, 1976), p. 160. 1 4. A r i s t o t l e , Metaphysics , Book A 1. 7, p. 25. 1 5. D e M o r n a y , Trewnesse, pp. 162–163. 16 . Ibid., pp. 32, 46, 141. 1 7. P e t e r C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome (London: Edward Blount and Will Ashley, n.d. [before 1612]), The English Experience facsimile series No. 315 (Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., De Capo Press, 1971), p. 9; William Baldwin, A Treatise of Morall Philosophie [.] Wherein Is Contained the Worthy Sayings of Philosophers, Emperors, Kings, and Orators . . . enlarged by Thomas Palfreyman , 20th ed. (London: Thomas Snodham, ?1620), Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with an introduction by Robert Hood Bowers (Gainesville, Florida, 1967), p. 44a. 1 8. A q u i n a s , Summa Theologica, Part I, Q. 76, Art. 2, Vol. I, p. 372. 1 9. J a m e s J o y c e , Ulysses (London: The Bodley Head, 1960), p. 31. 20 . For the new historicist approach, Susan Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt, Practising New Historicism (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2000), pp. 5, 170; for the Renaissance humanist approach, Pierre Charron in “The First Consideration of Man,” Of Wisdome , p. 7; also, Wright, Passions of the Minde, pp. 4–7. 21 . Baldwin, Book II, Chapter III “Of Man, and what he is,” Treatise, p. 44[ a ]. 2 2. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome , p. 9. 2 3. D e L a P r i m a u d a y e , The French Academie, translated with dedication by T. Bowes (London: Edmond Bollifant, 1586), in the Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprints No. 112 (Hildesham: George Verlag, 1972), p. 573. 2 4. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome , pp. 209–210, 187. 2 5. G e o r g e P e e l , The troublesome reign of John, King of England, ed. Charles R. Forker, “Authorship and Date” in “Introduction” (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2011), pp. 6–31. 26 . I observed the word twice, The troublesome reign of John, Part I, Scene 1, ll. 205 and 358, pp. 126 and 136. 27 . Herschel Baker has with understatement called the play an “exploration into the murky depths of Real-politic,” “Introduction” to King John in The Riverside Shakespeare: The Complete Works, Notes 151

2nd ed., general and textual editor G. Blakemore Evans, with the assistance of J. J. Tobin (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997), p. 806. 28 . Also Philip the Bastard’s earlier disquisition on shape, I.i. ll. 138– 146, The Riverside Shakespeare: The Complete Works, 2nd ed., general and textual editor G. Blakemore Evans, with the assistance of J. J. Tobin (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997), p. 209. Subsequent references to Shakespeare’s works will be to this edition. p. 811. 29 . De La Primaudaye, French Academie , p. 579. 30 . One thinks of Augustine’s concept of the divine creation of the universe as the unordered chaos of the working material of time and space into which God’s second and final creation put an intelligible form, in Confessions, trans. with introduction by R. S. Pine-Coffin (Harmondsworth, 1961), Books XI-XIII, p. 253–347, but particularly in passages as in Book XII, No. 29, pp. 306–307. Augustine’s concept is argued at length in Paradise Lost I. 5–21, V. 372–542, in Complete Poems and Major Prose, ed. Merritt Y. Hughes (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1957), pp. 211–212, 311–316. Subsequent references to Paradise Lost will be to this edition. 3 1. H a l y H e r o n , The Kayes of Consaile, A Newe Discourse of Morall Philosophie (London: Ralph Newberie, 1579), edited with introduction by Virgil B. Heltzel. (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1954), p. 2. 3 2. I b i d . , p p . 2 – 3 . 33 . Bartholomaeus., Liber Decimus, De materia et Forma, Chapter I, De Proprietatibus , p. 153[a ]. 3 4. W r i g h t , Passions of the Minde , p. 300. 35 . De La Primaudaye, French Academie , p. 19. 36 . In his “Introduction,” to Passions of the Minde pp. xxvi–xxvii, Sloan pointed out that Wright’s description of the sensory and immor- tal souls, as on pp. 57–59, depended on Thomistic distinctions. 3 7. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome , Chapter 2, “The first and general distinc- tion of man,” in “The first general consideration of man,” p. 11. 3 8. D e L a P r i m a u d a y e , French Academie , Chapter 8, “Of the Spirit and of memorie,” p. 88. 39 . In a dark moment in his French Academie, de La Primaudaye wrote, in man “she [the soule] is divided into two parts, the spirit and the flesh, between which there is perpetual combat” p. 86. 40 . Baldwin, Book II, Chapter I “Of Theologie Philosophicall,” Treatise, p. 40[a ]. 152 Notes

41 . Baldwin, Book II, Chapter IV “Of the Soule, and the government thereof,” p. 46[ b ]. 42 . Baldwin, Book II, Chapter I “Of Theologie Philosophicall,” p. 46[ a ]. 4 3. M a r t i n S p e v a k , The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1973), pp. 1183–1185. 4 4. B a l d w i n , Treatise , p. 46[ b ]. 45 . Baldwin, Book II, “Of Kings, Rulers and Governours,” p. 56 [r]. 46 . Greenblatt, “Invisible bullets: Renaissance authority and its sub- version, Henry IV and Henry V,” and Paul Brown, “‘This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine:’ The Tempest and the discourse of colonialism,” in Political Shakespeare: New essays in cultural materialism, Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield Eds. (Ithaca, N.Y. and London: Cornell University Press, 1885), pp. 18–47, 58–59.

3 The Wisdom of King Lear 1 . B a l d w i n , A Treatise of Morall Philosophie [.] Wherein Is Contained the Worthy Sayings of Philosophers, Emperors, Kings, and Orators . . . enlarged by Thomas Palfreyman, 20th ed. (London: Thomas Snodham, ?1620), Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with an introduction by Robert Hood Bowers (Gainesville, FL, 1967), p. 22[a-b]. 2 . P i e r r e C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome (London: Edward Blount and Will Ashley, n.d. [before 1612]), The English Experience facsimile series No. 315 (Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., De Capo Press, 1971), Sig. A2 [a]. 3 . T h o m a s C r e w e , The Nosegay of Morall Philosophie, lately dispersed amongst many Italian authours and now newely and succinctly drawne together into Questions and Answers, and translated into Englishe (London: Thomas Dawson, 1580), Sig. B8 r. 4 . H a l y H e r o n , The Keyes of Consaile, A Newe Discourse of Morall Philosophie (London: Ralph Newberie, 1579), edited with introduction by Virgil B. Heltzel (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1954), p. 41. 5 . B a l d w i n , Treatise , Sig. A2 [a]. 6 . P i e r r e d e L a P r i m a u d a y e , French Academie, translated with dedication by Thomas Bowes (London: Edmond Bollifant, 1586), Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprints No. 112 (Hildesham: George Verlag, 1972), p. 11; Charron, Of Wisdome , p. 3. 7 . A l i s o n F i n d l a y , Illegitimate Power: Bastards in Renaissance Drama (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1994), Notes 153

pp. 38, 89. Also Peter Laslett, Karla Oosterveen and Richard M. Smith, Bastardy and Its Comparative History (London and Cambridge, MA: Edward Arnold and Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 101, 103. 8 . I n Illegitimate Power, p. 34, Findlay writes: “The condition of this toleration [of bastards in the family] was, of course, that it remained private—in families who would maintain illegitimately born children as discreetly as possible.” 9 . B a l d w i n , Treatise, p. 53[b] . 10 . De la Primaudaye, French Academie , p. 209. 1 1. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome, Book I, Chapter VI “Of the vestments of the Bodie,” p. 21. 12 . Examples in two scenes: 1) III.vii: line 5, Goneril; lines 56–57 and 65, Gloucester; lines 67–68, 72, 83 and 96, Cornwall; lines 81–82, Servant; line 94, Regan; and 2) IV. vi: lines 2, 4, 12, 20, 22, 23, 58, 59, 256, 258, Edgar; lines 35, 60, 140, 144, 148, Gloucester; lines 88, 136, 145–147, 149, 150, 154, 170, 172, 176, 195, Lear; line 204, Gentleman; line 227, Oswald. 13 . Examples in two scenes: (1) II.iv: lines 4, 165, 194, 255, 277, 282– 284, 286, Lear; line 232, Regan; and (2) IV.vi: lines, 2, 22, 58, and 59, Edgar; line 88, Lear. 1 4. L . C . K n i g h t s , Some Shakespearean Themes (London: Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 80, and Kenneth Muir, ed. King Lear: Critical , Arden Edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), p. lx. Also, J. I. M. Stewart, Character and Motive in Shakespeare: Some Recent Appraisals Examined (New York: Longman’s, Green and Co., 1949), pp. 20–21; R. B. Heilman, This Great Stage: Image and Structure in King Lear (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1948), p. 25; and Philip C. McGuire, “King Lear: ‘O! See, See,’” in Shakespeare: The Jacobean Plays (London: Macmillan, 1994), p. 85, passim. 15 . Paul Alpers, “King Lear and the Theory of the Sight Pattern,” In Defense of Poetry, eds. Reuben A. Brower and Richard Poirier (New York: Dutton, 1962), pp. 135, 152. 16 . Richard Meek, “’Penn’d Speech’: Seeing and Not Seeing in King Lear,” in Shakespeare’s Book: Essays in Reading, Writing and Reception, ed. Richard Meek, Jane Rickard, and Richard Wilson (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2008), p. 79. 1 7. S t u a r t C l a r k , The Vanities of the Eye: Vision in Early Modern European Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 2–3. 154 Notes

1 8. A r i s t o t l e, The Metaphysics, Book A 1, trans., commentaries and glossary by Hippocrates G. Apostle (Bloomington and London: Indiana State University Press, 1966), p. 12. 1 9. I n Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), Schmitt writes, “the scholastic Aristotelianism that came out of the Reformation—on both the Catholic and Protestant sides—included many elements recog- nizable from the Middle Ages. . . . This late sixteenth-century Aristotelian scholasticism at its best—of whatever religious or national brand—was a sound and, in its way, progressive fusion of medieval scholasticism and Renaissance humanism,” p. 21. 2 0. C l a r k , Vanities of the Eye , p. 25. 21 . Bartholomaeus Anglicus, Batman Uppon Bartholome, His Booke De Proprietatibus Rerum [thirteenth century], translated into English by John of Trevisa [fourteenth century], ed. Stephen Batman (London, 1582), Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprint series, with introduction and index by Jü rgen Schä fer (Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1976), p. 37[b] , col. 2. 2 2. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome , p. 39. 23 . De La Primaudaye, French Academie , p. 730. 2 4. B a l d w i n , Treatise , p. 97 [b]. 2 5. G e o r g e H a k e w i l l , The Vanitie of the eye (Oxford: Joseph Barnes, 1615), p. 66. 26 . Ibid., p. 24. 27 . Ben Jonson, Bartholomew Fair, I.vi. 76; III.ii. 69, ed. Edward B. Partridge (Lincoln; University of Nebraska Press, 1064), pp. 39, 73. 28 . Meek, “’Penn’d speech,’: Seeing and Not Seeing in King Lear,” in Shakespeare’s Book: Essays in Reading, Writing and Reception, ed. Richard Meek, Jan Rickard, and Richard Wilson (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2008), p. 81. 2 9. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome, p. 41. See also Batman’s translation of Bartholomew’s De Proprietatibus on the importance of “the spir- ite Animalis” in the sense of smell, and how some of the things human smell might mistakenly lead them to question God’s wisdom in having created it, pp. 19b–20a. 30 . Shakespeare could use the image of smell in the humanist hierarchy of the senses to a quite different dramatic effect as well. In the comic dimension of The Winter’s Tale he employed it satirically. There the rogue and pickpocket Autolycus inverts metaphori- cally the position of smell from bottom to top in the hierarchy Notes 155

to show how skilled he is at robbing people in a crowd: “a good nose is requisite also, to smell out work for th’ other senses” (IV. iv. ll. 670–674). Without the nose at the top in the inverted hierarchy, the other senses “for a cutpurse” have no work to do. That Autolycus’s dominant sense is the smell of a dog is the least of his worries. 3 1. W l l i a m R . E l t o n , King Lear and the Gods (San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library, 1966), pp. 127–128, on the various meanings of the word “nature” and “Natural Law” in the Renaissance. 3 2. D e L a P r i m a u d a y e , French Academie , p. 172; Charron, Of Wisdome , p. 7. 33 . De La Primaudaye, French Academie , pp. 171–172. 3 4. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome , p. 7. 3 5. I b i d . , p . 2 5 9 . 36 . Philippe de Mornay, A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion . . . Begunne to be translated into English by Sir Philip Sidney Knight, and at his request finished by Arthur Golding (London: Thomas Cadman, 1587), Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with introduction by F. J. Sypher (New York: Delmar, 1976), p. 137. Also p. 212, on the ultimate ends of “generation.” 3 7. D e M o r n a y , Trewnesse , pp. 136–137. See also Elton, King Lear and the Gods, on the differences between Aristotle and the Renaissance on the nature of creation, p. 44, passim. 3 8. A r i s t o t l e , Physics , Book II, in a revised text with introduction and commentary by W. D. Ross (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1936), pp. 351, 355–356, and Ross’s “Introduction to Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy,” pp. 19–20. 3 9. J o h n F . D a n b y , Shakespeare’s Doctrine of Nature: A Study of King Lear (London: Faber and Faber, l949), p. 214. 4 0. R . S . W h i t e , Natural Law in English Renaissance Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 2. There and elsewhere (p. 185), White seems to have in mind what A. G. Harmon has called “Human Law,” A. G. Harmon, Eternal Bonds, True Contracts: Law and Nature in Shakespeare’s Problem Plays (Albany: State University of New York, 2004), p. 5. 4 1. D e M o r n a y , Trewenesse, p. 212; de La Primaudaye, French Academie, p. 172. 4 2. W h i t e , Natural Law , pp. 198–199. 43 . For the English common law practices covering the inheritances of illegitimate children, see Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis, The Royal Bastards of Medieval England (London and New York: Routledge, 1988), p. 48. 156 Notes

4 4. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome , p. 259. 4 5. A l a n H o b s o n , Full Circle: Shakespeare and Moral Development (London: Chatto and Windus, 1972), pp. 221–222 deals with the circle principally as a symbol of love.

4 Macbeth’s Imagination as Fatal Flaw 1 . As discussed, for example, by D. F. Bratchell in Shakespearean Tragedy (London and New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 1, and Barbara Kiefer Lewalski in “Introduction: Issues and Approaches,” Essays on Theory, History and Interpretation, Harvard English Studies 14 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), pp. 1–5, passim. 2 . For a description of this, see Bradley W. Buchanan’s Oedipus against Freud: Myth and the End(s) of Humanism in Twentieth-Century British Literature (Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press, 2010), p. 13. On Freud’s statement of the existence of the Oedipus complex, Jean-Pierre Vernant writes, “Cette d é mon- stration a toute l’apparente rigueur d’un raisonnement fondé sur un cercle vicieux. . . . Une thé orie é labor é e à partir de cas clin- iques et de rê ves contemporains trouve sa ‘confirmation’ dans un texte dramatique d’un autre â ge.” Jean-Pierre Vernant and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Œ dipe et ses mythes ( Brussels: Historiques, É ditions Complexe, 2001), p. 2. 3 . R. Drew Griffith, for example, writes, “Oedipus is justifiably punished by Apollo for the crime of parricide, into which he has been led by his hubristic self-image as a god,” The Theatre of Apollo: Divine Justice and Sophocles’ Oedipus the King (Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996), p. 3. 4 . A r t h u r K i r s c h , The Passions of Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes (Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 1990), p. 76. 5 . A r i s t o t l e , Poetics XI, XII, XIII (1452a-b, 1453a-b, 1454a), in On Poetry and Style, ed. G. M. A. Grube, The Library of Liberal Arts series (Indianapolis, ID: Bobbbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, 1982 [1958]), pp. 21, 23, 28. For the influence of Aristotle’s Poetics on Shakespeare, see chapter 1, note 55. Whether Aristotle’s influence on Shakespeare was direct or not, each of his tragedies in the First Folio of 1623 is identified as such on its title. Notes 157

6 . Horatio, of course, will change his mind (I.i. 46–49), and concede his belief in several other scenes of the play as well, I. ii. 196–212, and I.iv. 72–74, 87. 7 . T h o m a s W r i g h t , The Passions of the Minde in Generall [1601], facsimile text of the fifth edition (London: Miles Flesher, 1630) based on the second edition of 1604 (London: A. Islip and T. Thorpe, 1604), with introduction by Thomas O. Sloan (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971), p. 45. Kinney comments on this passage in Wright that “the physical condition is initiated by the imagination,” Lies Like Truth: Shakespeare, Macbeth, and the Cultural Moment (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 2001), pp. 184–185. 8 . A r i s t o t l e , De Anima (433b-434a), Book III, Chapters 10–11, in Introduction to Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon ( The Modern Library ), (New York: Random House, 1947), pp. 229–231. 9 . T h o m a s A q u i n a s , Summa Theologica, Vol. I, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns and Oates, 1947) Question 84, “How the Soul while United to the Body Understands Corporeal Things Beneath It,” Article 7 “Whether the Intellect Can Understand Actually Through the Intelligible Species of which It Is Possessed without Turning to the Phantasms?” pp. 429–430. 10 . Among the numerous discussions of the nature of the imagination in the Renaissance and its relationship to medieval and Classical thought: Ernst Cassirer, The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy, trans. with introduction by Mario Domandi (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1963), pp. 139–140, 164; Kinney, Shakespeare and Cognition: Aristotle’s Legacy and Shakespearean Drama (New York and London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 3–7, passim. 11 . Pierre de La Primaudaye, , “Of the common sense” in “The fourth days worke,” The second part of the French academie . . . translated out of the second edition, which was reviewed and augmented by the author (London: George Bishop, 1605), pp. 157–158; Wright, Passions of the Minde, pp. 51–52, 57–58; Bartholomaeus, Batman Uppon Bartholome, His Booke De Proprietatibus Rerum [thirteenth century], translated into English by John of Trevisa [fourteenth century], ed. Stephen Batman (London, 1582), Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprint series, with introduction and index by Jü rgen Schä fer (Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1976), Book III, Chapter 6, “Of the powers of the Soule,” pp. 13 [b] –14, 158 Notes

and Chapter 11, “The vertue of the sensitive imagination and memorie,” p. 15; Book V, Chapter 3, “Of the Braine,” p. 36[b] . 12 . de la Primaudaye, The second part of the French academie, p. 157. 1 3. J o h n D o n n e , Pseudo-Martyr, Chapter 9, ed. by Anthony Raspa (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993), p. 187. 1 4. J o h n M i l t o n , Paradise Lost, Complete Poems and Major Prose, Book V, 28–47, 100–113, pp. 303–305. 1 5. K e r m o d e , “ I n t r o d u c t i o n ” t o Macbeth in The Riverside Shakespeare: The Complete Works, 2nd ed., general and textual editor G. Blakemore Evans, with the assistance of J. J. Tobin (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997), pp. 1356–1357, suggests that Macbeth’s soliloquy on supernatural soliciting before the ethereal dagger is undoubtedly a prelude to the Porter’s more direct equivocal word play some scenes later on how drink arouses sexual desire but reduces sexual performance (II.iii). Macbeth’s soliloquy appears also to equivocate on what the humanists saw as the two functions of the imagination and on the resulting two ways of him imagining his experience. 1 6. H . R . C o u r s e n , Macbeth: A Guide to the Play (Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press, 1997), pp. 91–99 makes a survey of the various critical interpretations of the witches. 1 7. P i e r r e C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome (London: Edward Blount and Will Ashley, n.d. [before 1612]), The English Experience facsimile series No. 315 (Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, De Capo Press, 1971), pp. 54–55. 1 8. W r i g h t , Passions of the Minde, pp. 27, 30. Both Macbeth and Orsino in Twelfth Night make choices that are deliberate and each wishes to pursue an image that depicts him with his desires satisfied. Desires such as theirs come and they do not always go, and both characters provoke their wills to yield to what their desires offer. In neither case are their desires sanctioned by reason and what is radically dramatically different between them is what their desires provoke in the real world. Macbeth is a tragedy because the desires that the tragic hero wishes so wilfully to fulfill are murder—as Kermode has written, Macbeth, “is subjected to a temptation which . . . reflects what the powers of evil know to be the desires of the minde” (“Introduction,” Macbeth in The Riverside Shakespeare, pp. 1356–1357)—whereas Twelfth Night is a comedy because the desires that Orsino equally wilfully pursues are zany caprice. Nevertheless, the same principles of moral philosophy touching on desire and the fancy underlie both plays, and the comedy has Notes 159

its own serious side too. For Twelfth Night is also in part a satire on Renaissance humanist attitudes to one’s metaphysical being. In fact in 1601when it appeared, it might have even been considered a little risqué . A spectator at the play might have found it funny, but perhaps a little dangerous, watching someone who was every- one’s image of God mistaking his fanciful impressions for what a reasonable human really is and managing to remain amusingly lovable at the same time. Behind this kind of comedy there was therefore a form of irony conjoining in a contradictory fashion the role of the humanist faculties of the mind—the imagination, the reason, and the will, and this irony is also found in the character of Lysander, one of the lovers among A Midsummer Night’s Dream ’s many pairs of confused and confounded lovers. At one point, Lysander is unconscious of the contradictory character of what he is saying because he is drugged but nevertheless he argues, in spite of himself, that reason is a necessary fact of humanist life that Macbeth for his part comes to accept only at the end of his tragedy. In a chaotic scene in the woods in the second act, coming out of his sleep during which Puck drugged his eyes to make him fall in love with the first creature he saw on awakening, Lysander’s eyes alight on Helena whom he cannot tolerate under normal circumstances. For over an act she has been running after him and he has been just as desperately avoiding her. He says of himself to the confused Helena that he has been “by his reason swayed” (ii. l. 15), that he has finally got things right with reason and grown to manly maturity and that therefore he has fallen in love with her: “So I, being young, till now not ripe to reason; / And touching now the point of human skill, / Reason becomes the marshall of my will” (ll. 18–20). By a mature man he means that his reason has gained the control of his will but the opposite is true as he is functioning on Puck’s drug. For the humanist, the comic aspect of Lysander’s declaration was not only that he was in love in an illusory manner with someone whom he could not tolerate but that he also mistook his drugged state for reason. 1 9. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome , pp. 85–86. 20 . The witches appear initially in two brief scenes in which they prophesy first the imminent victory of King Duncan’s loyal Scots over the rebels and second Macbeth’s impending ascent to power and Banquo’s eventual line of kings. They appear again briefly a third time in a scene (III.v) that is commonly held to be an interpo- lation by Thomas Middleton in which the first of the three sisters 160 Notes

alone speaks, for only two lines, and a head-witch Hecate predicts vaguely that dire things are to come (Kermode, “Introduction,” Macbeth, p. 1355). Shakespeare’s original three witches appear a final and probably only a third time in Act IV.i during which they comply with Macbeth’s request to tell him what is to come (ll. 71–72, 80–81, 92–94). The witches summon three apparitions to discourse on his supposed invulnerability and as he insists on knowing what predictions are continuing to boil in their caul- dron, they give him a fourth apparition depicting the parade of a line of kings descended from Banquo that they had already pre- dicted briefly in Act I. But this time the prediction is a detailed vision that exacerbates painfully Macbeth’s realization that even if he has succeeded in becoming king he will have no regal descendants (ll. 122–123). The witches prophesy or tell Macbeth nothing else. 2 1. C o u r s e n , Macbeth , p. 51. 2 2. K e r m o d e , “ I n t r o d u c t i o n ” t o Macbeth in The Riverside Shakespeare, p. 1357.

5 Beauty and Misfortune in Romeo and Juliet 1 . How much the story of Romeo and Juliet is historical and how much is legend, and whether or not they came from Verona, is the subject of continuous debate. Whether or not they really existed is deeply imbedded in conjectures of what legends contributed to the making of their story. See Olin Moore, The Legend of Romeo and Juliet (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1950), particularly pp. 3–11, 129–131. 2 . P i e r r e d e L a P r i m a u d a y e i n The French Academie , translated with dedication by Thomas Bowes (London: Edmond Bollifant, 1586), Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprints No. 112 (Hildesham: George Verlag, 1972), pp. 495–496, makes a brief survey of opin- ions covering the best age to marry, but arrives at no conclusion of his own. 3 . Paul Oscar Kristeller has written, “Aristotle’s Rhetoric includes an important section on the passions . . . medieval philosophers grouped the Rhetoric with the moral writings of Aristotle because they used it as a supplement of his Ethics for the theory of the passions,” Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, ed. Michael Mooney Notes 161

(New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), p. 240, and later, Aristotle’s Rhetoric “was treated as a work on moral philosophy and ignored by the professional rhetoricians” but “During the Renaissance” it “was at last studied and utilized by the professional rhetoricians, along with Poetics ” (pp. 245–246). 4 . De La Primaudaye, French Academie , pp. 571–572. 5 . P i e r r e C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome (London: Edward Blount and Will Ashley, n.d. [before 1612]), The English Experience facsimile series No. 315 (Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., De Capo Press, 1971), p. 17. 6 . A l e x a n d e r L e g g a t t , Shakespeare’s Tragedies: Violation and Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 37. 7 . C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome , pp. 18–19. 8 . For the development of the two “strong” emotions of love and hate in the play, see Joseph Rosenblum, The Greenwood Companion to Shakespeare (Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press, 2005), p. 677. 9 . George A. Kennedy, on Aristotle’s “famous chapters on the emotions,” Of Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse , translated with introduction, notes and appendices by Kennedy (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 122. 1 0. K e n n e d y , “ N o t e ” i n Of Rhetoric , “The discussions come in pairs, arranged chiastically in what might loosely be described as positive/negative, negative/positive sequence,” p. 122; Charron lists most of the “Passions and Affections” beginning with love in Chapters 19 to 33, Of Wisdome , pp. 75–101; Wright intersperses his discussion of the different passions throughout several chapters, The Passions of the Minde in Generall [1601], facsimile text of the fifth edition (London: Miles Flesher, 1630) based on the second edition of 1604 (London: A. Islip and T. Thorpe, 1604), with introduction by Thomas O. Sloan (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971), pp. 7–44; Thomas Aquinas on the passions and their gradations, Summa Theologica, I.II, QQ. 22–48, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns and Oates, 1947 ), Vol. I, pp. 691–790; Robert Southwell, Two Letters and Short Rule of Good Life , ed. Nancy Pollard Brown (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1973), pp. 28–32; Ignatius Balsamo, An Instruction How to Pray and Meditate Well, trans. Thomas Everard (St. Omer: C. Boscard for John Heigham, 1622), p. 271. 162 Notes

1 1. S u s a n J a m e s , Passion and Action: The Emotions in Seventeenth- Century Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 7. 12 . Wright, “What we understand by Passions and Affections,” Chapter II, Passions of the Minde, p. 7; Aristotle, Of Rhetoric, I. 2, p. 121; Aquinas, Summa Theologica , I.II, Q. 22, p. 691. 1 3. G a i l K e r n P a s t e r , Humoring the Body: Emotions and the Shakespearean Stage (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 10. 1 4. F o r e x a m p l e , i n Hamlet , Claudius on Laretes’s mental reaction in his forthcoming duel with Hamlet, “When in your motion you are hot and dry – / As make your bouts more violent to that end” (IV.vii. 157–158); in Othello , Iago on “our raging motions” by which humans change from one state of mind to another (I.iii. 326–332). 15 . Daryl W. Palmer, “Motion and Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet,” in Romeo and Juliet: Bloom’s Shakespeare through the Ages (New York: Bloom’s Literary Criticism, 2008), pp. 313–323. 16 . Andy Clark describes the phenomenon in modern materialist terms: human “internal processes, with intrinsic temporal fea- tures, may figure prominently in the explanation of an important subset of adaptive behaviour. . . . [The human] adaptive oscilla- tor” . . . “involves an appeal to the presence of continuous mutu- ally modulating influences linking brain, body, and world,” Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997), pp. 162–163. 1 7. W r i g h t , Passions of the Minde , p. 7. 18 . The passage reads: “Virtue? A fig! ‘tis in ourselves that we are thus or thus. Our bodies are our gardens, to which our wills are gar- deners; so that if we will plant nettles or sow lettuce, set hyssop and weed up [time], supply it with one gender of herbs or distract it with many, either to have it sterile with idleness or manur’d with industry—why, the power and corrigible authority of this lies in our wills. If the [beam] of our lives had not one scale of reason to poise another of sensuality, the blood and basemens of our natures would conduct us to most prepost’rous conclusions. But we have reason to cool our raging motions, our carnal stings, [our] unbitted lusts; whereof I take this that you call love to be a sect or scion” (I.iii. ll. 319–326). 19 . Paul N. Siegel, “Christianity and the Religion of Love in Romeo and Juliet,” Shakespeare Quarterly (New York: The Shakespeare Association of America, 1961), Vol. XII, p. 371. Notes 163

2 0. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome, p. 75. 2 1. I n Othello , I.iii. ll. 319–332, on the will as controlling everything the human body becomes. 2 2. W i l l i a m B a l d w i n , A Treatise of Morall Philosophie [.] Wherein Is Contained the Worthy Sayings of Philosophers, Emperors, Kings, and Orators . . . enlarged by Thomas Palfreyman, 20th ed. (London: Thomas Snodham, ?1620), Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with an introduction by Robert Hood Bowers (Gainesville, FL, 1967), pp. 44b, 45a, 157a. 23 . William Fulbecke, A Booke of Christian Ethicks or Moral Philosophie (London: Richard Jones, 1587), The English Experience facsimile series No. 737 (Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., 1975), Sig. D 7 v–8 r . 2 4. R o s e n b l u m , Greenwood Companion to Shakespeare , p. 678. In the debate of fate over character in the play, H. B. Charlton described it as a failed tragedy, “Romeo and Juliet as an Experimental Tragedy,” Proceedings of the British Academy [1939] (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940), No. 25, p. 144, and Bertrand Evans writes of it as a tragedy of fate: “Fate is the controlling practiser, and the entire action of the play represents her at work in the details of her housekeeping,” Shakespeare’s Tragic Practice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), p. 22. G. Blakemore Evans, assuming a halfway position, sees Shakespeare as “juxtaposing the concepts of Fate and free will,” in the play “to ensure a humanely tempered reaction to his story of young and tragic love,” Romeo and Juliet: New Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge, London, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 25 . Philippe de Mornay, A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion . . . Begunne to be translated into English by Sir Philip Sidney Knight, and at his request finished by Arthur Golding (London: Thomas Cadman, 1587), Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with introduction by F. J. Sypher (New York: Delmar, 1976), p. 218. 26 . De La Primaudaye, French Academie , pp. 468, 470, 476. 27 . On the surface of things, Macbeth, in a tragedy of quite another kind, shares in what Juliet thinks. He too plays with the concept of fortune knowing that the real shape of events is already clear in his head. If chance, he says, “will have me king, why chance may crown me / Without my stir” (I.iii. 142–144). But Macbeth is only playing with Baldwin’s belief that fortune is real and abso- lutely fickle as he has already imagined the plot that will make him monarch in detail. As de Mornay would hold, Macbeth has 164 Notes

all the elements of moral action in hand and all that remains for him to do is to put the plan into action. Chance has nothing to do with the plot he has deliberately conceived. Giving chance an opportunity to influence events is merely the palliative thinking of his conscience. 28 . Unlike the events in King Lear for example, the inevitability of the influence of someone’s hamartia is not evident and we are tempted to ask why no one central figure of either the Montagues or Capulets tries to interrupt the progress of fate. Rosenblum lists the characters who hope to see the feud that seems to provoke the tragedy end but they are all secondary, Greenwood Companion to Shakespeare, p. 677. 29 . The use of fortune in this manner seemingly to govern action had already appeared in Shakespeare’s work, again in a play on love and friendship, Two Gentlemen of Verona, a few years earlier, and unlike in Romeo and Juliet, the circumstances in Two Gentlemen of Verona are directed to comedy rather than tragedy. But a number of incidents in both plays resemble each other for no better and yet important reason that Shakespeare knew how to adapt fortune to different theatrical genres. If in the Shakespeare comedy the characters succeed in drawing fortune to yield what they wish it to give, in the tragedy they are all somehow its victims and they can never go back on its dictates. Shakespeare’s use of fortune in Two Gentlemen of Verona therefore clarifies his use of it in Romeo and Juliet. The comparison of the action in both plays is instructive for the light it throws on his vision of how little and yet how much humanity determines its own fate. There are numerous parallels of action between both plays that provoke the same complications of fate and fortune. In Two Gentlemen of Verona, a chance piece of advice by Antonio’s cloistered brother—whom we never see—to his, Antonio’s, servant Panthino is the initial incident of the play’s action (I.iii. 4–8). The cloistered brother’s advice relayed by Panthino to Antonio is that he should send his son Proteus abroad for experience in life, and Antonio reacts by sending Proteus to the court of the duke of Milan. Until then, Proteus has been desperately in love with Julia at home but in Milan he falls for the duke’s daughter, Silvia, hopelessly at first sight. For her part, Silvia is as hopelessly enamoured of the other Veronese courtier Valentine, Proteus’s lifelong friend who lives for the moment at the Milan court, but her father has ambitiously planned her betrothal to somebody else. To escape safely, Valentine and Silvia have planned Notes 165

to elope down a rope ladder at her window as in Romeo and Juliet, and interestingly in both plays the parents ignore the secret loves of their children. In an attempt to keep the new object of his affections for himself, Proteus secretly betrays Valentine’s and Silvia’s plan to the duke in spite of his friendship with the former (III.i. 1–11). Threatened by death, Valentine flees, blaming “crooked fortune” for thwarting him as he totally ignores that the source of his trouble is the cleverly planned betrayal by his friend and that fickle fortune has nothing to do with what is happening (IV.i. 22). His conception of the fortune at work, as de Mornay would point out, is false. After a considerable number of mock trials in the woods and in court for all four, Proteus, Julia, Valentine, and Silvia, Proteus is won back to Julia by her constancy. Shakespeare critics have often found Proteus’s on-the-spot reconversion to lov- ing Julia unacceptably mechanical, and to us it can easily seem so, but Shakespeare’s first audiences would have also seen in it a comical triumph of an erring person’s will over his own miscon- duct. Meanwhile, Valentine falls back into Silvia’s arms where he always belonged, and, once forgiven by the duke, he explains to him “what hath fortuned” as though fickleness was all when in fact fortune had nothing to do with their plight as Proteus had provoked it (V.iv. 169). The action of the play is meant to be comic but the insistence on fortune and fate sows the seed that was to later underlie the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. 3 0. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome , p. 179. 3 1. W r i g h t , Passions of the Minde (1604) (first edition 1601), pp. 199–200. 3 2. I b i d . , p p . 2 0 0 – 2 0 4 . 33 . De La Primaudaye, French Academie , pp. 480, 479. 34 . A critic as recent as Tzachi Zamir rejects this interpretation of Romeo’s attraction to Rosaline, in Double Vision, Moral Philosophy and Shakespearean Drama (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), p. 112, while Ifor Evans, in The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays , 2nd ed. (London: Methuen and Co., 1959), pp. 80–81, supports it. 35 . Alexander Leggatt contrasts Romeo’s different reactions to Rosaline’s and Juliet’s respective beauties, Shakespeare’s Tragedies, Violation and Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 47. 36 . Susan Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt, Praticing New Historicism (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press), p. 3; Jacques 166 Notes

Derrida, Acts of Literature, ed. Derek Attridge (New York and London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 44–46. 37 . Greenblatt writes, “Yet few readers or spectators come away from Romeo and Juliet with the conviction that it would be better to love moderately. The intensity of the lovers’ passion seems to have its own compelling, self-justifying force, which quietly brushes away all social obstacles and moralizing,” “Introduction,” Romeo and Juliet, The Norton Shakespeare, General Editor Stephen Greenblatt (New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company, 1997), p. 870. 38 . For Romeo and Juliet’s predilections to death, see Paul N. Siegel, “Christianity and the Religion of Love,” Shakespeare Quarterly , XII (1961), p. 381. 39 . M. M. Mahood asked the question of Romeo and Juliet, “Does Death choose the lovers or do they elect to die?” Shakespeare’s Wordplay (London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1957), p. 57. 40 . For example: II.ii. 116–117 and iv. 90; II.vi. 424; and III.iii. 95. 41 . For example: Prologue, ll. 6, 9; I.i. 70, 126, 154, 163–176, 185–206, 222–223; I.ii. 14–15, 48; II.i. 138; v. 12, among many other references in the early acts; and V.iii. 50, 106, 134, 194, 287–307 for the ending. 42 . Mahood describes it as “Liebstod,” Shakespeare’s Wordplay, p. 57, as in Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde.

6 Of Animals and Men: The Tempest 1 . W i l l i a m B a l d w i n , A Treatise of Morall Philosophie [.] Wherein Is Contained the Worthy Sayings of Philosophers, Emperors, Kings, and Orators . . . enlarged by Thomas Palfreyman, 20th ed. (London: Thomas Snodham, ?1620), Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with an introduction by Robert Hood Bowers (Gainesville, FL, 1967), p. 44 [a]. 2 . P i e r r e D e L a P r i m a u d a y e , The French Academie, translated with dedication by Thomas Bowes (London: Edmond Bollifant, 1586), Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprints No. 112 (Hildesham: George Verlag, 1972), p. 74. 3 . T h o m a s C r e w e , The Nosegay of Morall Philosophie, lately dispersed amongst many Italian authours and now newely and succinctly drawne together into Questions and Answers, and translated into Englishe (London: Thomas Dawson, 1580), Sig. E4 v. Notes 167

4 . Philippe De Mornay, A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion . . . Begunne to be translated into English by Sir Philip Sidney Knight, and at his request finished by Arthur Golding (London: Thomas Cadman, 1587), Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with introduction by F. J. Sypher (New York: Delmar, 1976), pp. 227–229. 5 . C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome (London: Edward Blount and Will Ashley, n.d. [before 1612]), The English Experience facsimile series No. 315 (Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., De Capo Press, 1971, pp. 54–55, 58, 425. 6 . De Mornay, Trewnesse of Christian Religion , pp. 240–244. 7 . R i c h a r d D a w k i n s , The God Delusion (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), pp. 117–118, 135–137. 8 . Of the other “romances,” The Winter’s Tale appeared under the comedies in the folio of 1623 and Cymbeline under the tragedies, and Pericles, Prince of Tyre, and The Two Noble Kinsmen that were added to the canon later are also grouped under the romances. The five romances have received considerable attention, includ- ing from Stanley Wells, “Shakespeare and Romance,” Later Shakespeare, Stratford upon Avon Studies (London: Edward Arnold, 1966), pp. 49–80; E. C. Pettet, Shakespeare and the Romance Tradition (London and New York: Staples Press, 1949), pp. 161–199; and from a linguistic point of view, Maurice Hunt, Shakespeare’s Romance of the Word (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1990), pp. 109–140. 9 . Robert W. Upshaw has called Prospero’s use of his art “the performance of romance.” Beyond Tragedy, Structure and Experience in Shakespeare’s Romances (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1981), p. 94. He describes the play as “the imaginative descent of the experience of romance into areas more accessible to reason” (p. 93). 10 . Hallett Smith, “Introduction,” to The Tempest, The Riverside Shakespeare: The Complete Works, 2nd ed., general and textual editor G. Blakemore Evans, with the assistance of J. J. Tobin (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997), p. 1656. 11 . For differing views on the passage, note for Act IV.ii. 3 in The Riverside Shakespeare , p. 1678. 12 . For Baldwin’s prefaces to the 1559 edition of The Myrroure For Magistrates, the edition by Lily B. Campbell (New York: Barnes and Noble Inc., 1960), pp. 63–71. Also, de La Primaudaye, 168 Notes

Chapter 56 “Of the People, and of their obedience due to the Magistrate, and to the Lawe,” French Academie, p. 610, and Chapter 65 “Of the preservation of Estates and Monarchies,” p. 73; and Charron, Book I, Chapter 49 “of the State, Soveraignes” on the “inconveniences and miseries” of princes, Of Wisdome, p. 192, and Book III, Chapter 16 on “The dutie of Soveraignes and Subiects” and on the obligation of the ruler “to keepe his cov- enants and promises” with his people, p. 489. 13 . While Miranda here claims to have taught Caliban to speak, Prospero later claims it was he who educated him (IV.i. 189–190). Some editions edit line I.ii. 351, to make Prospero the speaker, The Riverside Shakespeare, note to line 351, p. 1666. 14 . De La Primaudaye, French Academie, p. 74. 1 5. B a l d w i n , Treatise, pp.[a-b] . The description is marginally attributed to “Tullius,” namely Cicero. 1 6. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome, p. 64. 1 7. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome, pp. 102–103. 1 8. F u l b e c k e , A Booke of Christian Ethicks, or Moral Philosophie (London: Richard Jones, 1587), The English Experience facsimile series No. 737 (Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., 1975), Sig. B4 v. 1 9. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome, pp. 103, 38. 2 0. W r i g h t , The Passions of the Minde in Generall [1601], facsimile text of the fifth edition (London: Miles Flesher, 1630) based on the second edition of 1604 (London: A. Islip and T. Thorpe, 1604), with introduction by Thomas O. Sloan (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971), p. 7. 2 1. W r i g h t , Passions of the Minde, p. 201. 2 2. H a l y H e r o n , Kayes of Consaile , A Newe Discourse of Morall Philosophie (London: Ralph Newberie, 1579), edited with introduction by Virgil B. Heltzel. University of Liverpool Press, 1954, p. 70: “Let us take for example the curious arte of Cosmographie, not straying farre from the purpose. Wherein I shoulde take occasion to talke of the parte of the worlde which is called Terra Habitabilis, the mayne lande inhabited whereof accordyng to the auncient wryters there are three partes, Europa , Africa, & Asia ; the last of them in quantitie is Europa, wherein we are con- teyned, the head Citie whereof is Rome , nexte unto that is Africke, wherein Carthage is chiefe, an earliest follower and imitator of the Empyre of Rome: but the greatest parte is Asia, whereof in tymes paste the principall Citie was Troye. And so to describe Notes 169

the seas that devide them all other from other, and yet environed rounde aboute the same, myght I not well be likened to a blynde man iudgyng colours, that talke of suche things by hearsay, which I cannot as Occulatus testis partely witnesse and reporte.” 2 3. H e r o n , Kayes of Consaile, pp. 1–3. 2 4. C h a r r o n , Of Wisdome, pp. 245–246.

S ELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Works Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica, 3 vols., literally trans. by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns and Oates, 1947. Aristotle. De Anima in Introduction to Aristotle , ed. Richard McKeon, The Modern Library. New York: Random House, 1947. Aristotle . The Metaphysics, trans. with commentaries and glossary by Hippocrates G. Apostle. Bloomington and London: Indiana State University Press, 1966. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by Christopher Rowe with introduction by Sarah Broadie. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Aristotle. Physics , revised text with introduction and commentary by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936. Aristotle. Poetics, in On Poetry and Style, ed. G. M. A. Grube, The Library of Liberal Arts. Indianapolis, ID: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, [1958] 1982. Aristotle. Of Rhetoric, trans. with introduction, notes and appendices by George A. Kennedy. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Augustine of Hippo. Confessions, trans. with introduction by R.S. Pine- Coffin. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961. Augustine of Hippo. Faith, Hope, and Charity: Enchiridion De Fide Spe et Caritate , trans. by Louis A. Arand, Ancient Christian Writers series. New York and Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, 1947. Baldwin, William. “Love and Lyve. / To the nobilitye and all other in office,” and “A Briefe Memorial of sundrye Unfortunate Englishe men,” The Myrroure For Magistrates (London: Thomas Marshe, 1559), ed. by Lily B. Campbell [1938]. New York: Barnes and Noble Inc., 1960. Baldwin, William. A Treatise of Morall Philosophie [.] Wherein Is Contained the Worthy Sayings of Philosophers, Emperors, Kings, and Orators . . . enlarged by Thomas Palfreyman , 20th ed. (London: Thomas Snodham, ?1620), 172 Select Bibliography

Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with an introduction by Robert Hood Bowers. Gainesville, FL, 1967. Balsamo, Ignatius. An Instruction How to Pray and Meditate Well, trans. by Thomas Everard. St. Omer: C. Boscard for John Heigham, 1622. Bartholomaeus Anglicus. Batman Uppon Bartholome, His Booke De Proprietatibus Rerum (thirteenth century), translated into English by John of Trevisa (fourteenth century), ed. Stephen Batman (London, 1582), Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprint series, with introduction and index by J ü rgen Sch ä fer. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1976. Bright, Timothy. A Treatise of Melancholie. Containing the causes thereof [1st ed.], London: T. Vautrollier, 1586], 2nd ed. London: J. Windet, 1586. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De Natura Deorum Academica , trans. H. Rackham, in Loeb Classical Library. London and Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann Ltd. and Harvard University Press, 1956. Charron, Pierre [Peter]. Of Wisdome (London: Edward Blount and Will Ashley, n.d. [before 1612]), The English Experience facsimile series No. 315. Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., De Capo Press, 1971. Crewe, Thomas. The Nosegay of Morall Philosophie, lately dispersed amongst many Italian authours and now newely and succinctly drawne together into Questions and Answers, and translated into Englishe. London: Thomas Dawson, 1580. de Mornay, Philippe. A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion . . . Begunne to be translated into English by Sir Philip Sidney Knight, and at his request finished by Arthur Golding (London: Thomas Cadman, 1587), Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, with introduction by F. J. Sypher. New York: Delmar, 1976. de La Primaudaye, Pierre. The French Academie, trans. with dedication by Thomas Bowes (London: Edmond Bollifant, 1586), Anglistica and Americana facsimile reprints No. 112. Hildesham: George Verlag, 1972. Derrida, Jacques. Acts of Literature , ed. Derek Attridge. New York and London: Routledge, 1992. Donne, John. Pseudo-Martyr , ed. with introduction and commentary by Anthony Raspa. Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993. Select Bibliography 173

Fulbecke, William. A Booke of Christian Ethicks or Moral Philosophie (London: Richard Jones, 1587), The English Experience facsimile series No. 737. Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., 1975. Fulke, William. A Goodly Gallerye with A Most Pleasant Prospect to behold the naturall causes of Meteors [1563]. London: W. Leake, 1602. Hakewill, George. The Vanitie of the Eye [1608], 3rd ed. Oxford: Joseph Barnes, 1615. Heron, Haly. The Kayes of Counsaile, A Newe Discourse of Morall Philosophie (London: Ralph Newberie, 1579), edited with introduction by Virgil B. Heltzel. Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1954. Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1755), facsimile edition. New York: AMS Press, 1967. Jonson, Ben. Bartholemew Fair, ed. by Edward B. Partridge. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964. Joyce, James. Ulysses . London: Bodley Head, 1960. Milton, John. Paradise Lost in Complete Poems and Major Prose , ed. by Merritt Y. Hughes. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1957. Peel, George. The troublesome reign of John, King of England (?London: ?1591), ed. with introduction by Charles R. Forker. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Plato. Timaeus, Plato with an English Translation, Loeb Classical Library Vol. VII. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952. Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie. London: R. Field, 1589. Shakespeare, William. The Complete Pelican Shakespeare, ed. by Stephen Orgel and A.R. Braummuller, 2nd ed. Middlesex: Penguin Putnam Inc., 2002. Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works, The Complete Pelican Shakespeare, general ed. Alfred Harbage (1956), 12th printing. Harmondsworth and New York: Penguin Books Inc., 1969. Shakespeare, William. The Norton Shakespeare, general editor Stephen Greenblatt. New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company, 1997. Shakespeare, William. The Riverside Shakespeare: The Complete Works, 2nd ed., general and textual editor G. Blakemore Evans, with the assistance of J. J. Tobin; editors, Herschel Baker, Anne Barton, Frank Kermode, Harry Levin, Hallett Smith, and Marie Edel. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997. 174 Select Bibliography

Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet, edited by G. Blakemore Evans, New Cambridge Shakespeare Cambridge, London, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Sherry, Richard. A treatise of schemes and Tropes, a translation of Erasmus’s De Civilitate Morum Puerilium. London: J. Day, 1550. Southwell, Robert, SJ. Two Letters and Short Rule of Good Life , ed. Nancy Pollard Brown. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1973. Speed, John. The History of Great Britaine Under the Conquest of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, Normans (London: W. Hall and I. Beale, 1611), Vol I, “Appendix B: Allusion XXXIV, John Speed 1611”) in William Shakespeare, A Study of Facts and Problems , by E. K. Chambers, 2 vols. [1930]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. Wright, Thomas. The Passions of the Minde in Generall [1601], facsimile text of the fifth edition (London: Miles Flesher, 1630) based on the second edition of 1604 (London: A. Islip and T. Thorpe, 1604), with introduction by Thomas O. Sloan. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971.

Secondary Works Allen, Don Cameron. Doubt’s Boundless Sea: Scepticism and Faith in the Renaissance . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1964. Alpers, Paul. “King Lear and the Theory of the Sight Pattern,” In Defense of Poetry, eds. Reuben A. Brower and Richard Poirier. New York: Dutton, 1962. Armstrong, Karen. A Short History of Myth. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. Asquith, Claire. Shadowplay . New York: Public Affairs, 2005. Babbitt, Irving. “Humanism: An Essay at Definition,” in Humanism and America: Essays on the Outlook of Modern Civilization . Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press Inc., 1967. Baker, Howard. Introduction to Tragedy. New York: Russell and Russell, 1965. Baldwin, T. W. William Shakespeare’s Five-Act Structure. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963. Barkan, Leonard. “What Did Shakespeare Read?”, The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare, ed. by Margaret de Grazia and Stanley Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Select Bibliography 175

Basney, Lionel. “Is a Christian Perspective on Shakespeare Productive and/or Necessary,” Shakespeare and the Christian Tradition [1941], ed. E. Beatrice Batson. Lewiston, NY, and Queenston, ON: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994. Battenhouse, Roy. W. Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great: A Study in Renaissance Moral Philosophy [1941]. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 1964. Battenhouse, Roy. Shakespearean Tragedy: Its Art and Christian Premises. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969. Beauregard, David N. Catholic Theology in Shakespeare’s Plays. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2008. Bell, Millicent. Shakespeare’s Tragic Skepticism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. Bertram, Benjamin. The Time is Out of Joint: Scepticism in Shakespeare’s England . Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2004. Braden, Gordon. Renaissance Tragedy and the Senecan Tradition. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1985. Bradshaw, Graham. Misrepresentations, Shakespeare and the Materialists. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993. Bradshaw, Graham. Shakespeare’s Scepticism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987. Bratchell, D. F. Shakespearean Tragedy . London and New York: Routledge, 1990. Brook, G. L. The Language of Shakespeare . London: Andre Deutsch, 1976. Buchanan, Bradley W. Oedipus against Freud: Myth and the End(s) of Humanism in Twentieth-Century British Literature. Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Cassirer, Ernst. The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy, trans. with introduction by Mario Domandi. New York and Evanston, IL: Harper and Row, 1963. Cavell, Stanley. Disowning Knowledge in Seven Plays of Shakespeare, Updated Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Chambers, E. K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems [1930]. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. Charlton, H. B. Proceedings of the British Academy , 1939, 25 [1940]. Clark, Andy. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997. 176 Select Bibliography

Clark, Stuart. The Vanities of the Eye: Vision in Early Modern European Culture . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Clemens, Wolfgang. English Tragedy before Shakespeare. London and New York: Methuen, 1980. Coursen, H. R. Macbeth: A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press, 1997. Craig, Leon Harold. Of Philosophers and Kings: Political Philosophy in Macbeth and King Lear. Toronto and Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Curran, John Jr. Hamlet, Protestantism, and the Mourning of Contingency. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Danby, John F. Shakespeare’s Doctrine of Nature: A Study of King Lear. London: Faber and Faber, l949. Darwell, Stephen. The British Moralists and the Internal ‘Ought’ . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Davies, Tony. Humanism , 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2008. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. Day, Martin S. The Many Meanings of Myth. Lanham, MD, New York and London: University Press of America, 1984. Doherty, Thomas. After Theory . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996. Dollimore, Jonathan, and Alan Sinfield, eds. Political Shakespeare: New essays in cultural materialism. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1985. Doty, William. Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1986. Duffy, Eamon. The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c.1400–c.1580. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2005. Eagleton, Terry. After Theory. New York: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group, 2003. Edelheit, Amos. Ficino, Pico and Savonarola: The Evolution of Humanist Theology 1461/2–1498. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. Elton, Wlliam R. King Lear and the Gods. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1966. Select Bibliography 177

Enos, Carol Curt. Shakespeare and the Catholic Religion. Pittsburg, PA: Dorrance Publishing Co. Inc., 1984 Evans, Bertrand. Shakespeare’s Tragic Practice. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Evans, Ifor. The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays [1952]. London: Methuen and Co., 1959. Findlay, Alison. Illegitimate Power: Bastards in Renaissance Drama. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1994. Gallagher, Susan, and Stephen Greenblatt. Practicing New Historicism. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Gillespie, Stuart. Shakespeare’s Books: A Dictionary of Shakespeare’s Sources. London and New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone Press, 2001. Given-Wilson, Chris, and Alice Curteis. The Royal Bastards of Medieval England . London and New York: Routledge, 1984. Grady, Hugh. Shakespeare, Machiavelli, and Montaigne. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Greenblatt, Stephen. The Power of Forms in the English Renaissance. Norman, OK: Pilgrim Books, 1982. Greenblatt, Stephen. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Griffith, R. Drew. The Theatre of Apollo, Divine Justice and Sophocles’ Oedipus the King. Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996. Gross, Daniel R. Discovering Anthropology . Mountain View, CA, London, and Toronto: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1992. Hamlin, William M. Tragedy and Scepticism in Shakespeare’s England. Houndmills, Basingstoke; Palgrave Macmillian, 2005. Harmon, A. G. Eternal Bonds, True Contracts: Law and Nature in Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. Albany: State University of New York, 2004. Heilman, R. B. This Great Stage: Image and Structure in King Lear. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1948. Hibbard, G. R. “King Lear : A Retrospect 1939–1979,” Shakespeare Survey, An Annual Survey of Shakespearean Study and Production, No. 33, ed. Kenneth Muir. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Hobson, Alan. Full Circle: Shakespeare and Moral Development. London: Chatto and Windus, 1972. 178 Select Bibliography

Holden, Anthony. William Shakespeare: The Man behind the Genius. London and Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1999. Hon igma n, E. A. J. Shakespeare: The “Lost Years.” Manchester : Manchester University Press, 1985. Hunt, Maurice. Shakespeare’s Romance of the Word . Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1990. Jackson, Ken, and Arthur F. Marotti. Shakespeare and Religion: Early Modern and Postmodern Perspectives. Notre Dame, ID: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011. James, Susan. Passion and Action: The Emotions in Sixteenth-Century Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Johnson, Jeffrey. “The Essay,” Chapter 19 in The Oxford Handbook of John Donne, ed. Jeanne Shami, Dennis Flynn, and Thomas Hester. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Kastan, David Scott. A Will to Believe: Shakespeare and Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Kermode, Frank. The Age of Shakespeare, The Modern Library series. New York, 2004. Kermode, Frank. Shakespeare’s Language. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press, 2000. Kielkopf, Charles F. “Logic, Liberation, Myth and Metaphysics,” Myth and Philosophy, in Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, Vol. XLV. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1971. Kinney, Arthur F. Lies Like Truth: Shakespeare, Macbeth, and the Cultural Moment. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 2001. Kinney, Arthur F. Shakespeare and Cognition: Aristotle’s Legacy and Shakespearean Drama . New York and London: Routledge, 2006. Kirsch, Arthur. The Passions of Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes . Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 1990. Knight, G. Wilson. The Crown of Life . London: Methuen and Co., 1948. Knights, L. C. Some Shakespearean Themes. London: Chatto and Windus, 1959. Kraye, Jill. The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Kristeller, Paul Oscar. Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, ed. Michael Mooney. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979. Select Bibliography 179

Laslett, Peter, Karla Oosterveen, and Richard M. Smith. Bastardy and Its Comparative History . London and Cambridge, MA: Edward Arnold and Harvard University Press, 1980. Leggatt, Alexander. Shakespeare’s Tragedies, Violation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Lewalski, Barbara Kiefer. “Introduction: Issues and Approaches,” Essays on Theory, History and Interpretation, Harvard English Studies 14. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Lines, Daniel A. Aristotle’s Ethics in the Italian Renaissance (ca. 1300–1650): The Universities and the Problem of Moral Education. Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002. Mahood, M. M. Shakespeare’s Wordplay. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1957. McDonald, Russ. “‘I loved My Books’: Shakespeare’s Reading,” The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. Boston: Saint Martin’s Press, 1966. McGuire, Philip C. “King Lear: ‘O! See, See,’” Shakespeare: The Jacobean Plays . London: Macmillan, 1994. Meek, Richard, Jane Rickard, and Richard Wilson, eds. Shakespeare’s Book: Essays in Reading, Writing and Reception . Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2008. Milward, Peter. The Catholicism of Shakespeare’s Plays. Southampton: Saint Austin Press, 2000. Moore, Olin. The Legend of Romeo and Juliet. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1950. Nauert, Charles B. Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Nuttall, A. D. Shakespeare the Thinker . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007. Palmer, Daryl W. “Motion and Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet,” in Bloom’s Shakespeare through the Ages: Romeo and Juliet, edited with introduction by Harold Bloom. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2008. Paster, Gail Kern. Humoring the Body: Emotions and the Shakespearean Stage . Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Pearce, Joseph. The Quest for Shakespeare . San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2008. Pettet, E. C. Shakespeare and the Romance Tradition . London and New York: Staples Press, 1949. 180 Select Bibliography

Pincombe, Michael. Elizabethan Humanism, Literature and Learning in the Later Sixteenth Century . London and New York: Longman’s, 2001. Rosenblum, Joseph. The Greenwood Companion to Shakespeare. Westport, CT, and London: Greenwood Press, 2005. Schmitt, Charles B. Aristotle and the Renaissance . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. Schmitt, Charles B. The Aristotelian Tradition and Renaissance Universities, in Variorum Reprints VII. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984. Siegel, Paul N. “Christianity and the Religion of Love in Romeo and Juliet,” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. XII. New York: Shakespeare Association of America, 1961. Spevak, Martin. The Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1975. Stewart, J. I. M. Character and Motive in Shakespeare: Some Recent Appraisals Examined . New York: Longman’s, Green and Co., 1949. Tillyard, E. M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. London: Chatto and Windus, 1943. Trinkaus, Charles. Renaissance Transformations of Late Medieval Thought. Aldershot, Brookfield: Ashgate Variorum, 1999. Trinkhaus, Charles. The Scope of Renaissance Humanism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983. Upshaw, Robert W. Beyond Tragedy, Structure and Experience in Shakespeare’s Romances . Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1981. Von Camphausen, Hans. Les P è res Grecs, trans. by O. Marbach. Paris: É ditions de l’Orante, 1969. Vernant, Jean-Pierre, and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Œ dipe et ses mythes. Brussels: Historiques, É ditions Complexe, 2001. Wells, Robin Headlam. Shakespeare’s Humanism . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Wells, Robin Headlam. Shakespeare on Masculinity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Wells, Stanley. “Shakespeare and Romance,” in Later Shakespeare, edited by John Russell Brown, and Bernard Harris, in Stratford upon Avon Studies 8. London: Edward Arnold, 1966. White, R. S. Natural Law in English Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Wilson, J. Dover. The Essential Shakespeare: A Biographical Adventure [1932]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952. Select Bibliography 181

Wilson, Richard. Secret Shakespeare. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Wood, Michael. Shakespeare. New York: Basic Books, Perseus Book Group, 2003. Yee, Simon. Recollecting Philosophy: Essays on Shakespeare and Philosophy. Vancouver: Emerald Knight Publishing, 2007. Zamir, Tzachi. Double Vision: Moral Philosophy and Shakespearean Drama. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.

INDEX

action form and, 34 Aristotle and, 172 on imagination, 82 concept of, 71 on passions, 161n. 10, 162n. 12 Edmund and, 74 Aristotle, and the Fathers of the Heron on, 42 Church, 141n. 19 humanity and, 41 De Anima Law of Nature and, 72 on the imagination, 82 Adam, 88 Metaphysics affections on being, 43 Aristotle on, 104 on the eye, 66 nature of, 95 on form, 33 number and system of, 103–5, Nichomachean Ethics, 12–13, 15, 160n. 3 118–19, 161n. 10 on destiny and choice, 147n. 70 volition and, 104–5 Poetics, 16 Alexander the Great, 43–4 form and, 32 allegory, 122 Macbeth’s flaw and, 92–3 Alpers, Paul, 153n. 15 and Shakespeare, 116–17, 145n. Ancients 55, 156n. 5 Christian ideals and, 5, 10 on tragic heroes, 15 as Fathers of the church, 141n. 19 Rhetoric on form, 32 on emotions, 161, n. 9 fusion with Christianity, 143n. 39 on passions, 160–1n. 3, 162n. 12 ladder of affections and, 118 Armstrong, Karen, 22 on metaphysics, 11 art, Prospero’s revival of, 17–18, 146n. 62 development, 125–6 vocabulary of emotions, 95 limitations, 126 angels, 22–3, 24 for vengeance, 126–7 animals As You Like It, 193 compared to men, 6, 133–4 on fortune, 111–12 liberty and, 36 Asquith, Claire, 8 Annunciation to Mary, 88 atom Apollo, 77 modern concept, 30 Charron on, 55 Augustine of Hippo, 10, 13 de la Primaudaye on, 55 on chaos, 151n. 30 his temple, 54–5 Aquinas, Thomas, 10, 13 Baker, Herschel, 150n. 27 evil as choice, 144–5n. 54 Baldwin, T. W., 160n. 55 184 Index

Baldwin, William, 2, 6, 13, 30 limits and triumphs of, 117 belief of the Ancients in God, Wright on, 114 147n. 69 Bowes, Thomas, 29, 140n. 9 distrust of eye, 67 Braden, Gordon, 141n. 19 on fortune, 107–8, 111, 113 Bradshaw, Graham, 7–8 on governors, 130 Bratchell, D. F., 16, 156n. 1 on immortality, 47 Brecht, Bertolt, 117 on paradigm of man, 121–2, 131 Bright, Timothy, 30 on reason, 125, 132 Brown, Paul, 152n. 46 on soul, 35 Buchanan, Bradley W., 156n. 2 on wisdom, 53 Balsamo, Ignatius, 161n. 10 Caravaggio, 24 Bartholomaeus Anglicus, 148n. 82 Cassirer, Ernst, 157n. 10 on action and form, 33, 41 Catholicism on angels, 22 Shakespeare and, 7–8, 10 on the eye, 66 Cavell, Stanley, 5, 7, 10 on fantasy and fancy, 83 Chambers, E. K., 142n. 28 on smell, 154–5n. 29 Charlton, H. B., 163n. 24 Barton, Anne, 4 Charron, Pierre, 3, 12–13, 30 Basney, Lionel, 25 on affections, 161n. 10 Batman, Stephen. See Batholomaeus on animals, 133 Anglicus on beauty, 99, 101–2, 114 Battenhouse, Roy, 3, 14, 140n. 4, on clothes, 61 145n. 55 on the eye, 66 Beauregard, David N., 8 on freedom, 36 beauty on governors, 168n. 12 bounty and, 114 on human paradigm, 122, 135 Charron on, 100, 102 on the Law of Nature, 71 human face and, 102 on love and justice, 106 Juliet’s, 102 on the new world, 135–6 physical, 96, 98, 116–17 on soul, 35 of the spirit, 100 on spirit and liberty, 132 spiritually universal, 101 on the will, 88–9 standard of, 97 on wisdom, 54–5 two meanings of, 99–100 Chastain, Jessica. See The Tree of Life Bell, Millicent, 9, 143n. 34, 146n. 61 choice Bembo, Pietro, 30 Caliban and, 134 Bentley, G. E., 5 Edmund and, 74–5 Bertram, Benjamin, 9 evil and, 14, 41, 158n. 18 birth human action and, 72–3 divinely inspired, 87–8 Christ, 21, 24–5 bounty Cicero, 18–19 beauty and, 114–15 Clark, Andy, 102n. 16 Juliet and, 116 Clarke, Stuart, 66 Index 185 comic relief, 93–4 on old age, 97 commodity on savagery, 131 political, 38–9, 44 on soul as spirit, 45 Philip the Bastard and, 39 on wisdom, 5 Complete Pelican Shakespeare, 5 De Mornay, Philippe, 2, 18, 139–40n. 3 Coursen, H. R., 142, 92, 158n. 16 on choice, 72 Crewe, Thomas, 140n. 2 form and, 33 human paradigm and, 122 human paradigm and, 122 wisdom and, 53–4 on lack of faith, 124 criticism on men and pagan gods, 147n. 72 Catholicism and, 7–8 on moral evasion, 109, 112, evolution of Shakespeare, 4–5 163–4n. 29 genre and, 16 rejects fortune, 190, 195, 210n. 27 idealist, 145n. 56 on time and action, 71–2 modern confusion in, 20–1 deconstruction, 116 moral philosophy and, 3–10 Derrida, Jacques, 7, 165–6n. 36 new trends in, 6–7 desire scepticism and, 8–9 animal, 89 on Shakespeare’s intelligence Charron’s description, 89 and, 7 two categories, 89 cultural materialism, 4, 9, 15–17, 50, the will and, 88–90 116, 141n. 17 Doherty, Thomas, 141n. 17 Dollimore, Jonathan, 9 Daedalus. See Joyce, James on transcendence as illusion, Danby, John F., 72 145n. 56 Darwell, Stephen, 140n. 4 Donne, John David, 25 on fancy, 84 Davis, Sir Richard, 8 on form, 31 Dawkins, Richard, 124–5 on reason, 124–5 Day, Martin S., 22 Doty, William, 22 De La Primaudaye, 3–4, 20 duality, human, 6, 35 on choice as action, 72 Dubrow, Heather, 145n. 57 describes superfluity, 60–1 dust on dust, 43 as counterpoint to soul, 44 on the eye, 66 in Hamlet, 43–4 on fancy and fantasy, 83–4 on fortune, 109 Eagleton, Terry, 141n. 17 on governors, 167–8n. 12 Early Modern Period, 17 on human liberty, 36 Edel, Marie, 173 on human paradigm, 122 Edelheit, Amos, 21 Law of Nature and, 71 Elton, William R., 155n. 31, n. 37 on love and society, 115 emotions on marriage, 160n. 2 as affections, 96, 103–4 nature of moral philosophy and, 30 Shakespeare’s view of, 95–7 186 Index

Enos, Carol Curt, 142n. 29 secondary to a pagan, 18 equality speculative, 26–7 as liberty among men, 54 three kinds of, 23 essentialism, 6 in Titus Andronicus, 23–4 ethics fancy its different meanings, 12–13 in comedy and tragedy, 83 as moral philosophy, 12 de La Primaudaye on, 84 and Revelation, 13 Donne and, 84 Eusebius, 67 good, evil and, 84–5 Evans, G. Blakemore, 163n. 24 as imagination, 82 Evans, Ifor, 165n. 34 Macbeth on, 85–6 evil Milton and, 84 as choice, 14, 144–5n. 54 in Renaissance literature, 84 evolution in Twelfth Night, 83 biology and, 45, 124 fantasy, 80, 82–3, 87 modern concept of, 30, 31–2, 133 fate eye confronts love, 105 in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, 66 contradicts Aristotle, 108 Bartholomaeus on, 66 definition of, 107 distrust of, 67 its force, 106, 163n. 24 Jonson’s satire on, 67–8 foreseen, 106 Kent’s use of, 68 inevitability of, 164n. 28 as metaphor, 65–6 influences love, 107–9 moral blindness and, 68–9 will and, 109, 163n. 24 references in King Lear, 65 Fathers of the Church soul and, 67 Aristotle and, 141n. 19 wisdom and, 67 Classical thought and, 143n. 39 Ficino, Marsilio, 30 fairy tale Findlay, Alison, 152–3n. 7 human paradigm and, 131 Folio (1623) Prospero’s art and, 125–6 King John, 36 its qualities, 125, 127 the romances and, 167n. 8 source in Prospero, 127, 130 Romeo and Juliet, 118 tempers romance genre, 127 The Tempest, 125 The Tempest and, 121, 125 Forker, Charles R., faith “Introduction,” The troublesome debate over, 23–6 reign of John, King of England, as inherent to rationality, 13 150n. 25 inherited, 24 form as logical conclusion, 19 accidental form, 41 modernity and, 123–4 action and, 41–2 Montaigne and, 146n. 61 classical definition of, 32 rational, 25–6 commodity and, 38–9 in Renaissance humanism, 12 government and, 38–9, 41–2 Index 187

King John and, 33, 37 Hakewill, George, 3, 20, 135 literature, science and, 30 distrust of the eye, 67–8 modern concept of, 33 Hamlet, 21, 30; on motion, 162n. 14; passions, psychology and, 31 sense of dissolution, 43–4, Renaissance concept of, 29–30 46, 80 “street” appreciation of, 36 Claudius, 21, 31, 35, 46, 49 three meanings of, 33–4 First Player, 31, 48 fortune Fortinbras, 46, 50 definitions of, 107 Gertrude, 43–4 Juliet describes, 112 Ghost, 45, 48–9, 80 its role, 105, 113 Hamlet, 50 freedom on divinity, 51 equality and, 54 form and, 31 as human liberty, 36, 122–3 hamartia and, 108 Freud, Sigmund, 77, 156n. 2 reason and, 34–5 Frye, Northrop, 5 sensory soul and, 44 Fulbecke, William Horatio on animals, 134 alters mind, 157n. 6 definitions of fortune, 108, 113 on the fantasy, 82 on Seneca and morals, 6 reason and, 34, 80 Fulke, William, 30 Laertes, 21 Marcellus, 49 Gallagher, Susan, 16, 144–5n. 54 Ophelia, 35, 43 Gillespie, Stuart, 4 form and, 34–5 Given-Wilson, Chris, 155n. 43 Polonius, 43 Golding, Arthur, 2, 18 Rosencrantz and governors Guildenstern, 43 Baldwin on, 167–8n. 12 Hamlin, William, 4, 9, 20 Charron on, 168n. 12 Harmon, A. G., 155n. 40 de La Primaudaye on, 167–8n. 12 Harvard Concordance to Shakespeare, Lear’s retirement and, 54, 56, 59 152n. 43 Prospero’s rule and, 129–30 hate rights to throne and, 49–50 chief bad affection, 118 self-knowledge and, 54, 56, 59 development of, 161n. 8 Grady, Hugh, 146n. 61 Headlam Wells, Robin, 9, 11, 20 Greenblatt, Stephen Heilman, R. B., 153n. 14 on aims of new historicism, 16, Heltzel, Virgil, 139n. 1 152n. 46 Heron, Haley on Montaigne and Thomas on action and form, 41–2 Aquinas, 145n. 54 on the new world, 135, 168–9n. 22 on Romeo and Juliet, 117, 165n. 36, n. 37 wisdom and, 53–4 Griffith, R. Drew, 156n. 3 Hibbard, G. R., 16, 146n. 58 Gross, Daniel R., Hobson, Alan, 140n. 4, 156n. 45 description of myths, 148n. 77 Holden, Anthony, 8, 142n. 31 188 Index

Holland, Peter, 5 Jackson, Ken, 4, 6, 8, 16, 146n. 58 Hood Bowers, Robert, 5, 139n. 2 Jacob, 25 humanism, materialist, 117, 123–4, James, Susan, 104, 162n. 11 162n. 16 Jocasta, 15 humanism, Renaissance Johnson, Samuel, 31–2 definition of, 12–13 Jonson, Ben, 68 on desire and fancy, 96 joy distinct from scholasticism, 11 destroyed by hate, 118 faith and, 15, 19 second affection, 104, 118 four sources of, 18–20 Joyce, James, 34 Greek and Roman origins, Judaeo-Christianity 143n. 39 Law of Nature and, 70–1 historical context, 16–17 meaning of ethics for, 11–12 human dignity and, 143n. 40 myth and, 22, 25 human paradigm and, 121 Revelation and, 18, 20 ideal of love in, 116 on shared immortality, 48 Juliet shares in, 116–17 Jupiter, 19 liberty and, 36 justice man in the universe and, 147–8n. 77 divine, 106–7 moral philosophy and, 10–11 legal, 107 Schmitt on, 11 soul, love and, 105 Kastan, David, 8 vocabulary of the emotions, 95–6 Kennedy, George, 104, 161n. 9, n. 10 Hunt, Maurice, 167n. 8 Kermode, Frank, 7, 92, 149n. 2, 158n. 15, 158–9n. 18 illegitimate children Kielkopf, Charles F., 148n. 78 common law and, 155n. 43 King John, 3, 37, 30; form and, 36; conception of, 163 rights to the throne, Edmund on, 74 36–7, 49 fate of, 57–8 Arthur, 37, 50–1 imagination Cardinal Pandulph, 40 contact with senses, 82 Constance of Normandy, 37 creates inner world, 83 Elinor of Acquitaine, 37, 42 explored in Macbeth, 79–80 Geoffrey, 36–7 traditions of, 140 Philip the Bastard two meanings for, 82 commodity and, 39 immortality form and, 32, 38 Hamlet on, 44 on rights to the throne, 49 as imitation, 13 and statehood, 51 as logical conclusion, 47 Richard the Lion-Hearted, 36 Shakespeare’s audience Robert of Falconbridge, 35, 37 and, 47–8 Salisbury soul and, 44, 146n. 64 form and, 40 Thomistic description of, 151n. 36 John and, 39–40 Index 189

King Lear, 3, 14, 15; charged opening confirms Lear’s hamartia, 59–60 dialogue, 55–7 images sense of smell, 69 Albany, 68 view of Lear, 56, 59 Cordelia, 54 Kinney, Arthur, 4, 145n. 55, 157n. 7, Law of Nature and, 73 n. 10 Cornwall, 62 Kirsch, Arthur, 156n. 4 Edgar, 14 Knights, L. C., 153n. 14 defence of Gloucester, 56 Kraye, Jill, 12 on Gloucester’s sexuality, 64–5 Kristeller, Paul Oscar Edmund, 14 on reason, 146n. 64 address to nature, 70, 74 revival of the Ancients, 146n. 63 character deformed, 63–4 soul’s immortality, 146n. 65, on nature, 74 160–1n. 3 reveals Gloucester’s lack of wisdom, 63 Law of Nature, 70 sexuality and, 64–5, 74 as action, 71–2 Fool, 54, 68 Charron’s description of, 71 France, 70, 73 choice and, 72 Gloucester de La Primaudaye’s description on action and choice, 73 of, 71 address to nature, 70 de Mornay’s description Apollo and, 56 of, 71–2 images eye, 68 two senses, 70–1, 73–4 mistreatment of Edmund, 56, W. R. Elton on, 155n. 31 63–4 Leggatt, Alexander, 100, 161n. 6, self-justification, 63 165n. 35 wisdom and, 54 Levin, Harry, 173 Goneril Lewalski, Barbara Kiefer, 145n. 57, on Lear’s conduct, 59–60 156n. 1 view of Lear, 56 liberty, 35, 122–3, 132 Kent Lines, Daniel A., 140n. 4 advises Lear, 68 love Apollo and, 55 as affection, 96 on Edmund, 57 charity and, 117–18 use of eye, 68 form of justice, 106 on wisdom, 55 ideal of, 114–16 Lear its nature, 95–6 addresses nature, 70 other emotions and, 95–6 Apollo and, 55–6 principal motives of, 114 images eye, 68–9 its scope, 100–1, 161n. 8 lack of self-knowledge, 55, 59–60 social context of, 115–16 mistreatment of his daughters, subject to fate, 106–7 56, 58–9 two dimensions of, 100, 115 Regan Love’s Labor Lost, 4 190 Index

Macbeth, 8; three unities in, 92–4 Marlowe, Christopher, 3 Banquo Marotti, Arthur, 4, 6, 8, 16, 146n. 58 as courtier, 153 Matthew, 24 descendants, 167n. 20 McDonald, Russ, 5 reactions to Macbeth, 79–82 McGuire, Philip, 153n. 14 on reason, 80 Medea, 108 Duncan, 81, 90–1 Meek, Richard, 153n. 16 Lady Macbeth metaphysics Duncan’s gift and, 90 the Ancients on, 10 health deteriorates, 86 Christian, 70–1 limited character, 93 contemporary living and, 3–4 reads Macbeth’s mind, 75, 89 described, 10–11 Macbeth dual existence of man in, 6 characterization, 15 form and, 33–44 on fortune and chance, 163–4n. 27 immortality and, 146n. 65 his ambition, 77–9 pagan and Christian, 6 his fatal flaw, 78–80, 82 satire on, 158–9n. 18 his imagination, 77–8 witches and, 92 ruled by fancy, 87–9 Middleton, Thomas, 159n. 20 will and fancy, 88–9 A Midsummer Night’s Dream Macduff, 87, 93 satire on metaphysics, 158–9n. 18 Rosse, 81–2 Milton, John, 151n. 30 Thane of Cawdor, 81, 89 on fancy, 84–5 The Three Witches on Satan, 90 access to Macbeth, 84 Milward, Peter, 68 Macbeth doubts their Montaigne, Michel de, 17, 144–5n. 54, predictions, 86–7 146n. 61 nature of their prophecies, 81, Moore, Olin, 160n. 1 91–3 moral philosophy omniscience of, 90 authors of, 3–4, 139n. 2 represent evil, 91–2 Christian ideals and, 10–13 repudiated by Macbeth, 87 as ethics, 12–13, 139n. 1 their representation, 92 the eye and, 65–6 three appearances of, 159–60n. 20 as facet of metaphysics, 10 understand Macbeth, 79 growth with humanism, 1 Maccabees, 25 human paradigm and, 121–2 Mahood, N. M., 166n. 39, n. 42 the imagination and, 77–8 Malick, Terrence, 149 importance to Shakespeare, 141n. 21 man practical Renaissance life and, 12–13 compared to animal, 133–4 rules of tragedy and, 93 dual existence of, 16, 35 scope of modern, 29–30 image of God, 143n. 40 scope of Renaissance, 6–7, 14, individual reason and, 34–5 29–30 modern view of, 35 sense of smell and, 69–70 paradigm in, 121–2 Shakespeare criticism and, 3–4 Index 191

“street” humanism, 1–2 passions superfluity principle and, 60–1 affections and, 104 two senses of, 2 Paster, Gail, 104, 161n. 10 two senses of the imagination, 82 Pearce, Joseph, 8 moral theology Peel, George, 36, 150n. 25, n. 26 distinct from moral philosophy, 13 Penn, Sean. See The Tree of Life Muir, Kenneth, 153n. 14 Peter, 24 myth Pettet, E. C., 167n. 8 anthropology and, 2, 148n. 78 Pitt, Brad. See The Tree of Life pagan, 19 Plato its Renaissance meaning, 22–3 Cicero on, 19 in Titus Andronicus, 24–6 form and, 32 on fortune, 108 nature on human nature, 121 addresses to nature in Lear, 70 on immortality, 18, 47 moral philosophy and, 70–2 Fathers of the Church nature of, 70 and, 141n. 19 W. R. Elton on, 155n. 31 positive Law, 74 Nauert, Charles, 17 psychology need, principle of, 61–2 Renaissance books of, 30 new historicism, 4–5, 7–8, 15–16, 19, Puttenham, George, 30 116, 150n. 20 Nuttall, A. D., 5, 7, 19 reason Banquo on, 80 Oedipus, 15, 77, 108 faith and, 26 Oosterveen, Karla, 153n. 7 generic form of, 34 Othello Hamlet and, 34 Iago’s choice of evil, 144–5n. 54 humanist ideal of, 18, 20, 35 motions and, 162n. 14 Macbeth regains, 86–7 soul and, 47 satire on, 158–9n. 18 the will and, 162n. 18, 163n. 21 soul as, 20, 34–5 source of liberty, 35 Palfreyman, Thomas, 2, 139n. 2 as spirit and matter, 121–2 Palmer, Daryl W., 162n. 15 Revelation, 13, 18, 20–1, 26, 71 paradigm, human Richard III Baldwin on, 121–2 choice of evil, 144–5n. 54 Charron on, 122 sexuality and, 64 Crewe on, 122 soul in, 152n. 43 de La Primaudaye on, 122 romance fairy tale and, 131 description of, 127 in moral philosophy, 121–3 modern grouping of, 167n. 8, n. 9 in Shakespeare’s characters, 122–3, Prospero’s influence on, 127 131–2 Shakespeare’s, 125 three elements in, 121 The Tempest’s characters, the Parsons, Robert, S. J., 8 paradigm and, 122–3 192 Index

Romeo and Juliet, 3, 95; Act II Chorus his desires, 113 and, 98; Aristotelian rules as humanist idealist, 105 and, 115; fate and coincidence predilection to death, 166n. 38, and, 113; historicity, 160n. 1; n. 39 stage productions, 118 Rosaline, 96 Benvolio different interpretations of, advises Romeo, 102 165n. 34 on the affections, 103 her presence, 99 his personality, 98–9 Romeo’s estimate of, 100–1 Capulet Tybalt defends Romeo, 96, 107 attacks Romeo, 96 his age, 97 coincidence and, 113 Friar Lawrence hatred and, 99 on beauty as problem, 114 identifies Romeo, 107 describes fate, 107 senses fate, 106 on fortune, 112 Rosenblum, Joseph, 108n. 8, 266, Friar John and, 98, 113 164n. 28 his cautions, 116 Juliet savagery, 131, 133 describes fortune, 112 de La Primaudaye on, 131 echoes Wright, 116 scepticism fatal flaw of, 113–14, 116–17 Christian, 143n. 34 her beauty, 102–3 criticism and, 9 as humanist idealist, 105 Montaigne and, 17 predilection to death, 166n. 38, Shakespeare’s, 9, 17 n. 39 Schafer, Jurgen, 33 verifies emotions, 105 Schmitt, Charles, 11 Lady Capulet on Renaissance humanism and her age, 97–8 medieval scholasticism, Lady Montague 154n. 19 her death, 98, 107 on Renaissance moral philosophy, Mercutio 141–2n. 21 fatality and, 113 on the revival of the Ancients, his character, 99 146n. 63 Nurse, 97, 10, 172 scholasticism, 11 fate and, 197 self-knowledge Paris, 95, 97 essential for governors, 54, 59 fate and, 113 Gloucester and, 56 Prince Regan on, 60 on fortune, 109 tragedy and, 56 on joy and hate, 118 wisdom and, 53–5 Romeo Seneca, 5–6, 141n. 19 fatal flaw of, 114, 116 sexuality fears fate, 106, 113 as part of love, 96 Index 193

Romeo’s attitude to, 100, 115 Stewart, J. I. M., 153n. I4 Sherry, Richard, 30 stripping Sidney, Sir Philip answers need, 61–2 trans. Trewnesse of the Christian Lear and, 61 Religion, 2, 18, 30 symbolic, 60–2 Siegal, Paul N., 106, 162n. 19, 166n. 38 superfluity Sloan, Thomas O., 147n. 67, 151n. 36 beggars and, 62 smell de La Primaudaye’s description image of birth, death or dishonor, of, 61 69–70 moral philosophy and, 60–1 Lear images, 67 need and, 63 moral philosophy and, 69 Sypher, F. J., 139n. 3 Smith, Hallett, 167n. 10 Smith, Richard M., 152–3n. 7 The Tempest, 3, 5; fairy tale and, 121, social context 127–8; three unities in, 92 as fatal flaw, 115 Alonso, 110, 123, 127 Juliet’s and Romeo’s blindness to, Antonio, 123, 127 115–16 Ariel love and, 114–15 on fate, 110 tragedy and, 113–14 his human needs, 130–1 Socrates, 19 his imprisonment, 126, 128 Sophocles, 15, 77 the human paradigm and, 122, soul 132 divine creation and, 123–4 liberty and, 132–3 as form and reason, 11–12, 34–6 as pure spirit, 129, 131 in Hamlet, 43 as reason, 123 immortality and, 18, 48 Caliban its limitations, 67 his age, 128 as “little god”, 12, 143n. 40 his appearance, 131 as logical conclusion, 18 his education, 129, 131, 168n. 13 love and, 106 his human needs, 131 philosophical idea of, 11, 47–8 his reason, 131, 133–4 Renaissance concept of, 11–12, 18, human paradigm and, 122 29–30 Ferdinand the sensory, 44–5 as romance figure, 123 theological aspect and, 48–9 Miranda two parts of, 121–2 brave new world metaphor and, Southwell, Robert, 161n. 10 135–6 Speed, John, 8, 142n. 28 Caliban’s lust for, 134 state her age, 128 Lear’s retirement from, 58 as romance figure, 123 Philip the Bastard and, 51 taught Caliban, 131, 168n. 13 Prospero’s rule and, 129–30 Prospero stability of, 49–50, 167–8n. 12 on fortune, 110 194 Index

The Tempest—Continued film and evolution, 31–2, 43 his age, 128 Trevisa, John of. See Bartholomaeus his duchess, 129 Anglicus his magic art, 110, 125–6 Trinkaus, Charles, 21 his suspiciousness, 129 on immortality of the soul, his vengeance, 126, 127, 130, 132 146n. 65 human paradigm and, 122 on man and the Incarnation, as Milan’s ruler, 129–30 147–8n. 77 need of his books, 126 on man’s dignity, 143n. 40 Stefano, 110, 123 on reason, 146n. 64 Sycorax, 128 on revival of the Ancients, Tertullian, 67 146n. 63 theory, 5 Twelfth Night Tillyard, E. M. W., 4–5 comedy and, 83 Titus Andronicus, 23–5 deliberate choice and, 158–9n. 18 Aaron, 23 Orsino on fancy, 83–4 choice of evil, 144–5n. 54 satire on metaphysics, 158–9n. 18 describes new believer, 26–7 Two Gentlemen of Verona; Romeo and Jupiter, 25 Juliet and, 164–5n. 29 Lucius, 23 fate as comedy, 164–5n. 29 as believer, 26–7 fortune and, 164–5n. 29 Mars, 24 Mercury, 24 Ulysses. See Joyce, James Pallas, 24 Upshaw, Robert, 167n. 9 Saturninus, 23–5 Tamora, 23–5 Vernant, Jean-Pierre, 156n. 2 Titus Von Campenhausen, Hans, 143n. 39 address to gods, 24 as God’s avenger, 25 Wells, Stanley, 167n. 8 tragedy White, R. S., 72, 74, 155n. 40 Aristotelian, 14–15, 105 Wilson, John Dover, 5 coincidence and, 108, 113 Wilson, Richard, 8 fortune, fate and, 105, 107, 113, Wilson Knight, G., 5 163n. 24 will notion of, 14–15, 77–8, 93–4 Charron’s description of, 88 provoked by beauty, 99 desire and, 88–9 social context and, 114 exclusive to man, 89 transcendence fancy and, 88 faith and, 24–5 fate and, 109, 163n. 24 philosophical conclusion in, 18 in Macbeth’s flaw, 88–9 in the Renaissance, 6 The Winter’s Tale Shakespeare’s history and, 9–10 Apollo and, 55 source in reason, 35 Paulina’s role in, 127 The Tree of Life sense of smell in, 154–5n. 30 Index 195 wisdom on beauty, 114 Apollo and, 54–5, 58 describes bounty, 114 Gloucester’s development and, 54, on fancy and fantasy, 83 62–3 form and, 31 Lear’s development and, 54–6, on the imagination, 182 58–61 on the passions, 161n. 10, 162n. 12 moral philosophy and, 54–5 psychology and, 30 as self-perfection, 53 Wood, Michael, 56 Yee, Simon, 12 Wright, Thomas, 18, 147n. 67, 31 on the affections, 105 Zamir, Tzachi, 3, 140n. 4, 165n. 34 on animals, 134 Zeus, 19