DOCSLIB.ORG

Shakespeare's Late Syntax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SHAKESPEARE’S LATE SYNTAX: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WHICH RELATIVISATION IN THE DRAMATIC WORKS by Jacqueline E. Mullender A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham June 2010 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis combines corpus stylistic, literary and historical linguistic approaches to test critical observations about the language of Shakespeare‟s late plays. It finds substantial evidence of increased syntactic complexity, and identifies significant linguistic differences between members of the wider group of later plays. Chapter One outlines the critical history of the late works, including consideration of stylometric approaches to Shakespeare‟s language. Chapter Two describes the stylistic methodology and corpus techniques employed. Chapter Three reports the finding of salient which frequency in the late plays, and details the analytical categories to be used in the examination of which usage, the results of which are discussed in Chapter Four. Chapter Five describes two further analyses, where a broader group of ten late plays is considered on the basis of their high which frequency. The relativisation syntax of the five post-1608 plays (Cymbeline, The Winter’s Tale, The Tempest, Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen) is found to distinguish them unequivocally as a group, while Pericles stands out as an anomaly. Finally, in Chapter Six it is argued that Shakespeare‟s syntax reflects a stylistic phenomenon unrelated to individual dramatic characterisation, motivated by his re-association with the Elizabethan romance writers of the sixteenth century. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks first and foremost go to Professor Michael Toolan, for his support, enthusiasm and insight during my postgraduate studies at Birmingham. I am also very grateful to the following: The Arts and Humanities Research Council, for their financial support of this project; Dr. Catherine Alexander and Professor Kate McLuskie at the Shakespeare Institute, for their interest and encouragement; Dr. Martin Wiggins, for his rigorous responses to various presentations of this research; Dr. Jonathan Culpeper, Dr. Paul Rayson, Dr. Mike Scott, Professor Sylvia Adamson and Dr. Dawn Archer, for their kind help at workshops and conferences, and early access to forthcoming articles; Caroline Tagg and Garry Plappert, for their rating work and insightful feedback, and the other research postgraduates in Language at the University of Birmingham, who taught me a great deal. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their kind tolerance of my neglect of them during this research. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: The Late Plays: Literary Critical Background 1.0 General remarks……………………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 The late plays: group identity……………………………………………………… 2 1.2 The language of the late plays………………………………………………………11 1.3 Authorship attribution studies…………………………………………………....... 21 1.4 Summary…………………………………………………………………………… 32 Chapter 2: Methodology and Method 2.0 General remarks……………………………………………………………………. 34 2.1 Stylistics……………………………………………………………………………. 35 2.2 Corpus stylistics……………………………………………………………………. 38 2.3 Method…………………………………………………………………………….. 42 Chapter 3: Analysing the Corpora 3.0 General comments…………………………………………………………………..49 3.1 The prominence of which in the late plays………………………………………….51 3.2 Paradigmatic analysis……………………………………………………………….56 3.3 Syntagmatic analysis……………………………………………………………….. 71 3.3.1 Main functions of which…………………………………………………… 74 3.3.2 Antecedents…………………………………………………………………76 3.3.2.1 Types of relative clause according to antecedent……………….. 76 3.3.2.2 The animacy parameter………………………………………….. 80 3.3.2.3 Distance from the relative……………………………………….. 81 3.3.2.4 Word groups intervening to the left……………………………. 86 3.3.3 The information parameter………………………………………………… 89 3.3.3.1 Restrictive and non-restrictive clauses…………………………. 89 3.3.3.2 Continuative clauses……………………………………………. 98 3.3.4 The role of which in the relative clause…………………………………… 118 3.3.4.1 Nominal roles…………………………………………………… 118 3.3.4.2 Which as prepositional complement……………………………. 120 3.3.4.3 Relativiser-only which………………………………………….. 120 3.3.4.4 Cataphoric which……………………………………………….. 125 3.3.4.5 Pushdown constructions………………………………………... 126 3.3.4.6 Recursions………………………………………………………. 131 3.3.5 Interventions to the right of which………………………………………… 135 3.3.5.1 The number of words intervening to the right………………….. 135 3.3.5.2 Word groups intervening to the right…………………………… 140 3.3.6 Clausal length……………………………………………………………… 144 Chapter 4: Results and Discussion 4.0 General remarks……………………………………………………………………. 153 4.1 Main functions of which…………………………………………………………… 154 4.2 Antecedents……………………………………………………………………….. 157 4.2.1 Types of relative clause according to antecedent…………………………. 157 4.2.2 The animacy parameter……………………………………………………. 164 4.2.3 Distance from the relative…………………………………………………. 166 4.2.4 Word groups intervening to the left………………………………………. 168 4.3 The information parameter………………………………………………………… 172 4.3.1 Overall statistics.…………………………………………………………… 172 4.3.2 Continuative clauses.………………………………………………………. 175 4.4 The role of which in the relative clause.…………………………………………… 178 4.5 Interventions to the right of which…..…………………………………………….. 190 4.5.1 The number of words intervening to the right...…………………………… 190 4.5.2 Word groups intervening to the right.…..………………………………….. 191 4.6 Clausal length…………………………..………….………………………………..201 4.7 Summary of findings for the late plays corpus………………..…………………… 203 Chapter 5: Additional Perspectives 5.1 A new late group?......................................................................................................207 5.2 Findings for the new late group…………………………………………………….212 5.3 The individual plays………………………………………………………………...218 5.4 Chapter summary…………………………………………………………………...229 Chapter 6: Conclusions 6.1 Review of method……………………………….………………………………… 232 6.2 Overview of findings…………………………………………...………………….. 238 6.3 Related studies………………………………………………………………………249 6.4 Further interpretation………………………………………………………………. 254 6.4.1 General comments…………...…………………………………………….. 254 6.4.2 The dramatic function of complexity………………………………………. 254 6.4.3 The Elizabethan revival……………….…………………………………… 259 Appendices 1 Non-Shakespearean material removed from the corpora………………..……….… 313 2 Wordlists (earlier and late plays)…………...………………………….……………cd 3 Keyword list for the late plays………………………………………………..……. 315 4 Keyword list for the late plays (Excel table with full data)……...………………… cd 5 Paradigmatic statistics……………………………………………………...………. 316 6 Paradigmatic relatives: all concordances…….…………………………………….. cd 7 Concordances for which (earlier and late plays)…………………………………… cd 8 List of which occurrences given to raters………………………………………….. cd 9 Tables of results for the analysis of the „new late group‟…………………………..270 10 Tables of results for the analysis of the individual plays…………………………...281 10 The reconstructed Pericles text: principal differences from Craig (1914)…………318 Bibliography...................................................................................................................... 321 LIST OF TABLES Chapter 3 3.1 The late plays: top 49 keywords................................................................................ ..52 3.2 “Overall survey of relativisers in Modern English” (Dekeyser 1984, 64)……….… ..61 3.3 Dekeyser‟s survey of relativisers (1984, 64) without zeros………………………….64 3.4 Raw frequency and proportion of relatives in Shakespeare…….…………………....65 3.5 Proportion of running tokens that are relatives in Shakespeare……………………...66 3.6 Shakespeare‟s relatives: raw and relative frequencies of types ……..………………67 3.7 Shakespeare‟s relatives: proportion of each type that function as relatives…………68 3.8 “Relativisation correlated with register” (Dekeyser 1988, 31)…………….………. .69 3.9 Wh- forms and that in Shakespeare‟s earlier and late plays……..………………… .70 3.10 Rating results: divergent ascriptions.......................................................................... 111 Chapter 4 4.1 Main functions of which............................................................................................ 156 4.2 Types of relative clause according to antecedent……………………….…………. 164 4.3 “The de-humanization of (THE) WHICH” (Dekeyser 1984, 71)…………………..165 4.4 The animacy parameter……………………………………………………………. 165 4.5 Distance between antecedent and relative…………………………………………. 167 4.6 Word groups intervening to the left........................................................................... 171 4.7 The information parameter........................................................................................ 174 4.8 Analysis of continuative clauses................................................................................ 177 4.9 The role of which in the relative clause: principal functions....................................
Recommended publications
  • “Savage and Deformed”: Stigma As Drama in the Tempest Jeffrey R

    “Savage and Deformed”: Stigma As Drama in the Tempest Jeffrey R

    “Savage and Deformed”: Stigma as Drama in The Tempest Jeffrey R. Wilson The dramatis personae of The Tempest casts Caliban as “asavageand deformed slave.”1 Since the mid-twentieth century, critics have scrutinized Caliban’s status as a “slave,” developing a riveting post-colonial reading of the play, but I want to address the pairing of “savage and deformed.”2 If not Shakespeare’s own mixture of moral and corporeal abominations, “savage and deformed” is the first editorial comment on Caliban, the “and” here Stigmatized as such, Caliban’s body never comes to us .”ס“ working as an uninterpreted. It is always already laden with meaning. But what, if we try to strip away meaning from fact, does Caliban actually look like? The ambiguous and therefore amorphous nature of Caliban’s deformity has been a perennial problem in both dramaturgical and critical studies of The Tempest at least since George Steevens’s edition of the play (1793), acutely since Alden and Virginia Vaughan’s Shakespeare’s Caliban: A Cultural His- tory (1993), and enduringly in recent readings by Paul Franssen, Julia Lup- ton, and Mark Burnett.3 Of all the “deformed” images that actors, artists, and critics have assigned to Caliban, four stand out as the most popular: the devil, the monster, the humanoid, and the racial other. First, thanks to Prospero’s yarn of a “demi-devil” (5.1.272) or a “born devil” (4.1.188) that was “got by the devil himself” (1.2.319), early critics like John Dryden and Joseph War- ton envisioned a demonic Caliban.4 In a second set of images, the reverbera- tions of “monster” in The Tempest have led writers and artists to envision Caliban as one of three prodigies: an earth creature, a fish-like thing, or an animal-headed man.
  • The Two Noble Kinsmen: the Oxford Shakespeare Ebook

    The Two Noble Kinsmen: the Oxford Shakespeare Ebook

    THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN: THE OXFORD SHAKESPEARE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK William Shakespeare,John Fletcher,Eugene M. Waith | 256 pages | 15 Jan 2010 | Oxford University Press | 9780199537457 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom The Two Noble Kinsmen: The Oxford Shakespeare PDF Book The crucial moment in the story, when the two friends catch sight of Emilia and fall in love simultaneously, is presented with heroic pathos, without any comic innuendo. Schute and Lytle made it clear in the post-show question and answer session that they consciously did not include any real suggestion of homoeroticism between the two men. I loved my lips the better ten days after' When Theseus, Duke of Athens, learns that the ruler of Thebes has killed three noble kings he swears to take revenge. Dear Customer, As a global organization, we, like many others, recognize the significant threat posed by the coronavirus. It's an interesting way to approach Researchers have applied a range of tests and techniques to determine the relative shares of Shakespeare and Fletcher in the play in their attempts to distinguish the shares of Shakespeare and Fletcher. He is banished from Athens, but he disguises himself, wins a local wrestling match, and is appointed as Emilia's bodyguard. The boys were riveted throughout. Gerald hails them, and they agree to watch the yokels perform a bizarre act for them, with the jailer's mad daughter dancing. Other subplots in Shakespearean and Fletcherian drama function similarly. The dramatist most probably Shakespeare evidently wanted to present the protagonists, before their interactions with Theseus, as nobly united in friendship and brotherly affection.
  • “From Strange to Stranger”: the Problem of Romance on the Shakespearean Stage

    “From Strange to Stranger”: the Problem of Romance on the Shakespearean Stage

    “From strange to stranger”: The Problem of Romance on the Shakespearean Stage by Aileen Young Liu A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English and the Designated Emphasis in Renaissance and Early Modern Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Jeffrey Knapp, Chair Professor Oliver Arnold Professor David Landreth Professor Timothy Hampton Summer 2018 “From strange to stranger”: The Problem of Romance on the Shakespearean Stage © 2018 by Aileen Young Liu 1 Abstract “From strange to stranger”: The Problem of Romance on the Shakespearean Stage by Aileen Young Liu Doctor of Philosophy in English Designated Emphasis in Renaissance and Early Modern Studies University of California, Berkeley Professor Jeffrey Knapp, Chair Long scorned for their strange inconsistencies and implausibilities, Shakespeare’s romance plays have enjoyed a robust critical reconsideration in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. But in the course of reclaiming Pericles, The Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline, and The Tempest as significant works of art, this revisionary critical tradition has effaced the very qualities that make these plays so important to our understanding of Shakespeare’s career and to the development of English Renaissance drama: their belatedness and their overt strangeness. While Shakespeare’s earlier plays take pains to integrate and subsume their narrative romance sources into dramatic form, his late romance plays take exactly the opposite approach: they foreground, even exacerbate, the tension between romance and drama. Verisimilitude is a challenge endemic to theater as an embodied medium, but Shakespeare’s romance plays brazenly alert their audiences to the incredible.
  • Shakespeare Apocrypha” Peter Kirwan

    Shakespeare Apocrypha” Peter Kirwan

    The First Collected “Shakespeare Apocrypha” Peter Kirwan he disparate group of early modern plays still referred to by many Tcritics as the “Shakespeare Apocrypha” take their dubious attributions to Shakespeare from a variety of sources. Many of these attributions are external, such as the explicit references on the title pages of The London Prodigal (1605), A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608), 1 Sir John Oldcastle (1619), The Troublesome Raigne of King John (1622), The Birth of Merlin (1662), and (more ambiguously) the initials on the title pages of Locrine (1595), Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602), and The Puritan (1607). Others, including Edward III, Arden of Faversham, Sir Thomas More, and many more, have been attributed much later on the basis of internal evidence. The first collection of disputed plays under Shakespeare’s name is usually understood to be the second impression of the Third Folio in 1664, which “added seven Playes, never before Printed in Folio.”1 Yet there is some evidence of an interest in dubitanda before the Restoration. The case of the Pavier quar- tos, which included Oldcastle and Yorkshire Tragedy among authentic plays and variant quartos in 1619, has been amply discussed elsewhere as an early attempt to create a canon of texts that readers would have understood as “Shakespeare’s,” despite later critical division of these plays into categories of “authentic” and “spu- rious,” which was then supplanted by the canon presented in the 1623 Folio.2 I would like to attend, however, to a much more rarely examined early collection of plays—Mucedorus, Fair Em, and The Merry Devil of Edmonton, all included in C.
  • Fletcher & Shakespeare's the TWO NOBLE KINSMEN

    Fletcher & Shakespeare's the TWO NOBLE KINSMEN

    Fletcher & Shakespeare's THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN Prefented at the Blackfriers, by the Kings Maiefties fervants, with great applaufe: Written by the memorable Worthies of their time; {Mr. John Fletcher, and} Gent. {Mr. William Shakefpeare} Printed at London by Tho. Cotes, for Iohn Waterferfon: and are to be fold at the figne of the Crowne in Pauls Church-yard. 1634 Modern Spelling Transcribed by BF. copyright © 2002 Words discussed in the glossary are underlined. Run-ons (closing open ends) are indicated by ~~~ THE PERSONS OF THE PLAY PROLOGUE THESEUS , Duke of Athens. HIPPOLYTA, Queen of the Amazons, later wife of Theseus. EMILIA, her sister. PIRITHOUS, friend of Theseus. Cousins, nephews of Creon, the King of Thebes. PALAMON ARCITE HYMEN, god of marriage. BOY ARTESIUS, Athenian soldier. Three QUEENS, widows of slain kings. VALERIUS, a Theban. HERALD WOMAN, attendant of Emilia. GENTLEMAN MESSENGERS Six KNIGHTS, three attending Arcite and three Palamon. SERVANT JAILER DAUGHTER JAILER'S BROTHER WOOER Two FRIENDS DOCTOR Six COUNTRYMEN SCHOOLMASTER NELL, a country wench. FOUR OTHER COUNTRY WENCHES TABORER EPILOGUE NYMPHS, ATTENDANTS, MAIDS, EXECUTIONER, GUARD. Scene: Athens. Time: Mythological (ca. 1300-1200 b.c.); before the Trojan War. CONTENTS The Two Noble Kinsmen Appendix I Glossary Length Source Suggested Reading Attribution of Scenes Appendix II: Connections ACT I Prologue [Flourish. Enter Prologue.] PROLOGUE: New plays and maidenheads are near akin: Much followed both, for both much money giv'n If they stand sound and well. And a good play, Whose modest scenes blush on his marriage day That after holy tie and first night's stir Yet still is modesty, and still retains More of the maid to sight than husband's pains.
  • The Two Noble Kinsmen"

    The Two Noble Kinsmen"

    Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance Volume 12 Article 10 June 2015 Chaucer and His Bastard Child: Social Disjunction and Metaliterariness in "The Two Noble Kinsmen" Piotr Spyra Department of Studies in Drama and pre-1800 English Literature at the University of Łódź, Poland Follow this and additional works at: https://digijournals.uni.lodz.pl/multishake Part of the Theatre and Performance Studies Commons Recommended Citation Spyra, Piotr (2015) "Chaucer and His Bastard Child: Social Disjunction and Metaliterariness in "The Two Noble Kinsmen"," Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance: Vol. 12 , Article 10. DOI: 10.1515/mstap-2015-0010 Available at: https://digijournals.uni.lodz.pl/multishake/vol12/iss27/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Arts & Humanities Journals at University of Lodz Research Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance by an authorized editor of University of Lodz Research Online. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance vol. 12 (27), 2015; DOI: 10.1515/mstap-2015-0010 ∗ Piotr Spyra Chaucer and His Bastard Child: Social Disjunction and Metaliterariness in The Two Noble Kinsmen The Two Noble Kinsmen is a play whose history lies in the shadow of the issue of authorship. For many centuries the interest of critics and scholars in this work sprang almost entirely from Shakespeare’s involvement in its creation and ended precisely at those moments in the text where the Bard’s contribution shifted into what was seen as John Fletcher’s mediocre postscript to Shakespeare’s magnificent verse.
  • Collaboration Between William Shakespeare and John

    Collaboration Between William Shakespeare and John

    ... H WITH A ‘CO-ADJUTOR’: COLLABORATION ON J D AN E BETWEEN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND R ESPEA K JOHN FLETCHER IN THE TWO NOBLE A H S 1 IAN KINSMEN LL I W EEN Com “ajudante”: colaboração entre William W BET Shakespeare e John Ffletcher em Os dois primos ATION R nobres ABO LL O ’: C R UTO DJ A - O C ‘ A H IT . W B José Roberto Basto O’Shea* , J. R. EA H S ’ O RESUMO O presente ensaio visa sintetizar, criticamente, o conhecimento existente acerca da controversa questão da colaboração no contexto teatral elisabetano-jaimesco, em geral, e no caso da composição da peça Os Dois Primos Nobres (1613-1614), especificamente. Recorrendo a seis procedimentos distintos atualmente empregados por especialistas para verificar e aferir autoria e coautoria, o ensaio conclui em favor de inquestionável colaboração entre William Shakespeare, veterano dramaturgo da companhia The King’s Men, e John Fletcher, dramaturgo iniciante junto à mesma companhia à época. Palavras-chave: colaboração; coautoria; Shakespeare; Fletcher; Os Dois Primos Nobres. 1 This essay was researched at the Folger Shakespeare Library, in Washington, DC, in 2013, while the author held a short-term Folger fellowship. * Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC). REVISTA LETRAS, CURITIBA, N. 92 P. 49-65, JUL/DEZ. 2015. ISSN 2236-0999 (VERSÃO ELETRÔNICA) 49 O’SHEA, J. R. B. WITH A ‘CO-ADJUTOR’: COLLABORATION BETWEEN WILLIAN SHAKESPEARE AND JONH... ABSTRACT This essay attempts critically to synthesize existing knowled- ge as regards the controversial issue of collaboration in the Elizabethan-Jacobean theatrical context, in general, and in the case of the composition of the play The Two Noble Kinsmen (1613-1614), in particular.
  • Edward De Vere and the Two Noble Kinsmen

    Edward De Vere and the Two Noble Kinsmen

    Edward de Vere and The Two Noble Kinsmen Michael Delahoyde e can detect in early Elizabethan literary culture an apparent fad for dramatizing the initially “classical and then humanist theme of W amicitia , the idealised male friendship celebrated in such key Renaissance pedagogical texts as Cicero’s De amicitia and De officiis and Seneca’s De beneficiis ” (Stewart 58). What we cannot detect in early Elizabethan literary culture is an early Elizabethan literary culture—that is, before Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who provided England with its long-awaited national, cultural, multi-disciplinary Renaissance. Damon and Pythias The tale of Damon and Pythias, whose story epitomized for centuries the ideal of male friendship in Western culture, showed up in a 1571 quarto, three copies of which are still extant. Further evidence points to a Damon and Pithias being performed before Queen Elizabeth during the 1564 Christmas season at Whitehall shortly after her severe bout with fever (White 6). The quarto edition, considered the first tragicomedy in English, ambiguously attributes the work to Richard Edwards (1524-1566), Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal during the last five years of his life. In terms of Elizabethan theatrical history, most interesting, though, is this from the character Damon: 117 THE OXFORDIAN VOLUME XV 2013 Delahoyde Pithagoras said, that this world was like a Stage, Wheron many play their partes (348-349). Shakespeare editors assure us that the famous conceit was well-worn by the time he used it in As You Like It . But one wonders if, as possibly with Romeus and Juliet , Shakespeare wasn’t just drawing upon his own earlier work.
  • Montaigne and Sycorax

    Montaigne and Sycorax

    MONTAIGNE AND SYCORAX Kenji Go（郷 健治） THE best-known borrowing by William Shakespeare from Michel de Montaigne’s celebrated Essais（ 1580, 82, 88, 95 etc.） comes from the chapter, ‘Des Cannibales’, which is famously echoed in Gonzalo’s utopian ‘commonwealth’ speech in The Tempest, 2.1.145-62.1 Pace Capell, who first pointed out this borrowing in 1780,2 recent critics have generally accepted Malone’s following view: Our author has here closely followed a passage in Montaigne’s ESSAIES, translated by John Florio, folio, 1603: “It is a nation, （would I answer Plato,） that hath no kind of trafficke, no knowledge of letters, .....” This passage was pointed out by Mr. Capell, who knew so little of his author as to suppose that Shakspeare（ sic） had the original French before him, though he has almost literally followed Florio’s translation.3 That is to say, Gonzalo’s utopian speech follows so closely, almost verbatim, a passage in Montaigne’s essay, ‘Of the Caniballes（’ hereafter, ‘Caniballes’）, in John Florio’s English translation of 1603, that there is no doubt that Shakespeare used this English version of Montaigne’s essay in writing those 1 Hereinafter, quotations of The Tempest follow Stephen Orgel’s Oxford（ 1987） edition. 2 See Edward Capell, Notes and Various Readings to Shakespeare, vol. 2, part 4（ London, 1780）, p. 63, where, quoting the original French text of Montaigne’s essay, he suggested that Shakespeare read it in French. 3 Thus Malone corrected, not very kindly, Capell’s view in his footnote to Gonzalo’s ‘commonwealth’ speech in his edition: The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare, vol.
  • Voice and Agency in William Shakespeare's the Tempest and Aimé Césaire's Une Tempête Sophie Fahey Scripps College

    Voice and Agency in William Shakespeare's the Tempest and Aimé Césaire's Une Tempête Sophie Fahey Scripps College

    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2017 Voice and Agency in William Shakespeare's The Tempest and Aimé Césaire's Une Tempête Sophie Fahey Scripps College Recommended Citation Fahey, Sophie, "Voice and Agency in William Shakespeare's The eT mpest and Aimé Césaire's Une Tempête" (2017). Scripps Senior Theses. 906. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/906 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOICE AND AGENCY IN SHAKESPEARE’S THE TEMPEST AND AIMÉ CÉSAIRE’S UNE TÉMPETE by SOPHIE R. FAHEY SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS PROFESSOR DECKER PROFESSOR SHELTON DECEMBER 16, 2016 I. Introduction In both William Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Aimé Césaire’s 1965 adaptation Une Tempête, a character’s power is directly linked to how much of a voice he or she has throughout the text. Both texts deal very explicitly with power, although Shakespeare focuses more on Prospero regaining his power through a position in European society, while Césaire is concerned with the effects of colonial figures (represented by Prospero) on the colonized (represented by Ariel and Caliban). Césaire explores in depth the character of Caliban who serves as the protagonist, instead of his antagonistic role in Shakespeare’s play. Césaire explicitly casts Caliban as a black slave and Ariel as a mulatto slave, bringing the ideas of colonialism to the forefront of the play.
  • Read the Following Passage and Answer the Questions That Follow

    Read the Following Passage and Answer the Questions That Follow

    Class 11 Answer Key The Tempest Act1 Scene 2 Extract 7-10 Extract 7: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow How came we _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ my dukedom. 1.Where are Miranda and Prospero? How did they reach the shore? Ans. Miranda and Prospero are on the uninhabited island. Prospero was oust from his dukedom with his three years old daughter in a dilapidated boat by his brother Antonio. According to Prospero, they reached ashore by Providence divine i.e. by the loving care of God. 2. Who was Gonzalo? How can you say that Gonzalo was the man with some concern for Prospero? Ans. Gonzalo was an old honest courtier in Alonso's court. When Prospero was expelled from his dukedom, Gonzalo, the incharge of the plan, helped Prospero by not only keeping rich garments, linens, stuffs, and necessaries in his boat but also books from Prospero's library which he valued above his dukedom. 3. What did Gonzalo provide Prospero with for the journey? Ans. Gonzalo, an old courtier, was the incharge of the design planned by Antonio and Alonso i.e. to expel Prospero from his dukedom. Gonzalo helped Prospero by keeping rich garments, linens, stuffs, and necessaries and books from Prospero's library which he valued above his dukedom in his dilapidated boat for his journey. 4. What was above Prospero's dukedom among the things provided by Gonzalo? How did Prospero make use of it? Ans. Among the things provided by Gonzalo, Prospero' books were above all other things which he kept in his dilapidated boat .
  • Modern Reflection in Shakespeare's Plays

    Modern Reflection in Shakespeare's Plays

    International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2020 456 ISSN 2250-3153 Modern Reflection In Shakespeare’s Plays Md. Abdul Qader Lecturer, Department of English, Tarash Honours College, Tarash, Sirajgonj DOI: 10.29322/IJSRP.10.01.2020.p9771 http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.10.01.2020.p9771 Abstract- William Shakespeare, the pioneer of English literary contemporary and his plays have immortalized him. world, is a universally famous dramatist whose creations and Shakespeare’s dramas can be divided into three sections. literary contributions became more in the Elizabethan period than First Section: The dramas of this section were written in in Jacobean age. This is why; he is identified as an Elizabethan 1590-1600. They are 22 in number. They are Henry-VI (1st part), dramatist in English literature although he is a Renaissance and Henry-VI (2nd part), Henry-VI (3rd part), Richard-III, The Comedy modern thinker. Modernism is reflected in his plays to a great of Errors, Titus Andronicus, The Taming of the Shrew, Love’s extent. Shakespeare has written thirty-seven plays in his life time. Labour’s Lost, Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Out of them, only twenty-five plays were written in the The Two Gentlemen Of Verona, King John, Richard-II, The Elizabethan Age (1558-1603). He wrote his twelve important Merchant of Venice, Henry-IV (1st Part), Henry-IV (2nd Part), plays in the Jacobean Age (1603-1625). Yet he is an Elizabethan Much Ado About Nothing, Henry-V, Julius Caesar, The Merry and not the Jacobean.