DOCSLIB.ORG

University Microfilms Copyright 1982 by Greenwood, Kathy Lynn All

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University Microfilms Copyright 1982 by Greenwood, Kathy Lynn All 8207191 Greenwood, Kathy Lynn THE TRANSFORMING EYE: THE POETIC FICTIONS OF FALSTAFF AND CLEOPATRA The Ohio State University PH.D. 1981 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Copyright 1982 by Greenwood, Kathy Lynn All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a checkV mark. 1. Glossy photographs or pages______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____ 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy_____ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page_____ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages______ 8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_____ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)___________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)___________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered 320 Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Other____________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International THE TRANSFORMING EYE: THE POETIC FICTIONS OF FALSTAFF AND CLEOPATRA DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kathy L. Greenwood, B.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1981 Reading Committee: Approved By Prof* Julian Markels Prof* Rolf Soellner Prof. Robert C. Jones Advise) Department cff English VITA Kathy L. Greenwood March 8, 1949. .... B o m - Marfa, Texas 1973 ......... B.A., New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 1975 M.A., New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 1975-1981. ...... Teaching Associate, Department of English, The Ohio State University 1981 ......... Lecturer, Department of English, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Renaissance Literature. Prof. Robert C. Jones Minor Fields: Medieval Literature. Prof. Christian Zacher American Literature to 1900, Prof. Daniel Barnes Critical Theory. Prof. James L. Battersby TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VITA ............................................ ii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION............................... 1 2. LUNATICS, LOVERS, AND POETS ................ 13 3. "FOR EMPHASIS OF WI T " ...................... 53 4. THE HONEST LIE............................. 160 5. CONCLUSION................................. 315 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... 320 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION At first glance, it may seem arbitrary or whimsical to yoke together the two radically different characters with whom this essay is concerned, Falstaff and Cleopatra. The purpose of my thesis, however, is to explore and de­ scribe a very important similarity between them. Both characters imaginatively and creatively transform their respective playworlds in order to resist the levelling influence of those duller minds which rule their political destinies. Other characters in 1 Henry IV and Antony and Cleopatra also transform. That is, for various reasons, they alter or distort reality as it is established for us in the plays. Some, seeking to enhance their political or personal status, alter in order to deceive someone else. Others, like Hotspur and Antony, are blinded or self-de­ ceived and cannot help distorting. Characters transform in order to cast their activities in the best possible light, to detract from the actions of their competitors, to control and give shape to their "stories," or to impose particular patterns or interpretations upon the events which comprise those stories. Several characters try to impose "interpretations" on Cleopatra and Falstaff, assign­ ing them "parts" as the cunning and dissipated seducers of other, more virtuous souls. But in our perspective, the Egyptian and the Knight resist such reductive "placing." They do not resist, however, by actually working in the playworld to counteract the designs of their opponents or to implement their own plots and schemes, as we might expect transformers to do. Rather, they reimagine their worlds and themselves, they see from a different angle, and they make us see with them. When they are transforming in this manner, they engage us in their visions and win us away from the versions of their stories forwarded by the other characters whose transforming impulses are more self- serving or harmful and, hence, disquieting to us. Almost every character in these plays alters "reality" in some fashion, but Falstaff and Cleopatra, unlike any of the others, are poetic transformers, characters who "distort," revitalize, and even remake their worlds solely in the province of the imagination. The self-conscious interest Shakespearean drama often has in itself as drama has been frequently noted. These two plays, however, go beyond a self-re£lexive concern with the power (and possible danger) of the dramatist's art, taking as one of their major subjects, and then affirming, the potency and value of poetic imagination. There are other similarities between Falstaff and Cleopatra. We can little imagine the sensuous Egyptian and Hal's jolly companion swilling sack together in the Boar's Head or chatting in the palace in Alexandria about their common problems with the politicians. Being told that he had an affinity with Cleopatra, Falstaff might protest that the comparison was unsavory, and Cleopatra would doubtlessly banish anyone who dared align her with a "fat-witted" Englishman. Still, were the two to walk the streets together in disguise, noting "the quality of the people" and eavesdropping on their conversations, they would discover just how alike the virtues and defects im­ puted to them really are, especially if they wandered into mode m critical quarters. In fact, audiences before now have thought to link them together for various reasons. "Cleopatra stands in a group with Hamlet and Falstaff," says A. C. Bradley, as a character who is "inexhaustible," and she shares one of Falstaff's weaknesses, vanity.^ According to Philip Traci, "Falstaff and what he repre­ sents are as important for Hal to experience in his growth to Henry V as Cleopatra and what she represents are to Antony's growth to dream proportions," and Walter C. Foreman, Jr., coming even nearer to the concerns of this essay, mentions in a footnote the fertility of Falstaff's* and Cleopatra's imaginations and the varying degrees to 2 which their "creative idleness" triumphs. 4 But whether critics consciously think of them together or not, the adjectives employed to describe one often crop up in descriptions of the other. For example, both are accused by other characters, as well as by the plays' audiences, of being sinners enough to "corrupt a saint," not to mention a Hal or an Antony. Falstaff is saturated with vices and follies, including cowardice, drunkenness, lying, gluttony, sloth, and vanity, while Cleopatra, wily serpent of the Nile and mistress of the "dark" arts of feminine seductiveness, is faithless and cunning, a de­ bauched and lascivious strumpet. So say their detractors. On the other hand, say even those same detractors— realizing quite rightly that not all has yet been accounted for— Cleopatra and Falstaff generate a vitality that in­ fuses their plays, a vitality that inspires Maurice Morgann's spirited defense of Falstaff from charges of cowardice, Harold Goddard's insistence that we are as deceived as Caesar if we think that Cleopatra wavers in her determination to kill herself, and most other critics' tempering of even their most intolerant stances with con­ cessions to the attractiveness of whichever "sinner" they happen to be discussing.3 Cleopatra and Falstaff, most of us agree, are inventive and witty, infinitely variable, energetic, mirthful, entertaining, possessed of a dramatic sense of life, and, in spite of their advanced years, youthful. They both occupy a great deal of the imaginative space of their plays, and they appear especially lively and life-loving when placed in the company of the priggish and disapproving politicians with whom both collide. There are, in short, apparently conflicting, or at least incompatible, signals given off by the sometimes not-quite-queenly Queen and the something-less-than-honorable Knight which cause readers, whether they essentially admire or condemn the characters, to hedge their opinions. Thus, W. H. Auden, seeking for an explanation of "why Falstaff affects us as he does," decides that, overtly, he is "a Lord of Misrule," but "parabolically, he is a comic symbol for the super­ natural order of charity. • . ."4 The issue between the "psychological and anti-psychological interpretations of Falstaff," states Robert Langbaum, who worries that we are made to admire such a scoundrel as he thinks Falstaff to be, is whether as coward, lecher, and glutton he is the butt of the comedy and deservedly outwitted in the end, or whether he is the maker of the comedy, playing the butt for the sake of the humor which he turns upon himself as well as everyone else— whether he is, in other words, victorious in all the wit combats whatever his circumstantial defeat.5 In Cleopatra's case, the hesitation to praise or damn her outright is most acute in discussions of the final scene. Though most agree that it is a stunning scene, many dis­ trust its effect. Its "power and beauty,"
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Dull Soldier and a Keen Guest: Stumbling Through the Falstaffiad One Drink at a Time
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2017 A Dull Soldier and a Keen Guest: Stumbling Through The Falstaffiad One Drink at a Time Emma Givens Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd Part of the Dramatic Literature, Criticism and Theory Commons, and the Theatre History Commons © The Author Downloaded from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/4826 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Emma Givens 2017 All rights reserved A Dull Soldier and a Keen Guest: Stumbling Through The Falstaffiad One Drink at a Time A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Fine Arts at Virginia Commonwealth University. Emma Pedersen Givens Director: Noreen C. Barnes, Ph.D. Director of Graduate Studies Department of Theatre Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia March, 2017 ii Acknowledgement Theatre is a collaborative art, and so, apparently, is thesis writing. First and foremost, I would like to thank my grandmother, Carol Pedersen, or as I like to call her, the world’s greatest research assistant. Without her vast knowledge of everything Shakespeare, I would have floundered much longer. Thank you to my mother and grad-school classmate, Boomie Pedersen, for her unending support, my friend, Casey Polczynski, for being a great cheerleader, my roommate, Amanda Long for not saying anything about all the books littered about our house and my partner in theatre for listening to me talk nonstop about Shakespeare over fishboards.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Seneca on 1934) Pp. 33-54; Philip Edwards, Thomas Kyd
    Notes CHAPTER ONE. COMMON ELEMENTS I. For Senecan influence, see John W. Cunliffe, The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy (London: Macmillan, 1893); F. L. Lucas, Seneca and Elizabethan Tragedy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922); T. S. Eliot, 'Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca', in Elizabethan Essays (London: Faber, 1934) pp. 33-54; Philip Edwards, Thomas Kyd and Early Elizabethan Tragedy, Writers and their Work Series (London: Longmans, 1966) pp. 10-11. The importance of Senecan influence has been denied by Howard Baker in Induction to Tragedy: A Study in Development ofForm in •Gorboduc', 'The Spanish Tragedy' and 'Titus Andronicus' (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1939), and by George Hunter in 'Seneca and the Elizabethans: A Case Study in "Influence"', ShS, XX (1967) 17-26. 2. Sir Philip Sidney, An Apology for Poetry, ed. Geoffrey Shepherd (London: Nelson, 1965) p. 118. 3. John Foxe, Actes and Monuments (London, 1583). For a pictorial anthology of 'sundrye kindes ofTormentes' (including blinding), see pp. 794f. at the end ofvol. 1. A chained copy of this immensely popular work was made available in every cathedral, and regular public readings were prescribed by Church ordinance. 4. This meaning has not been recorded by the OED. For examples, see Chapman, Hero and Leander, Ill. 59-64,146; Middleton and Rowley, The Changeling, I.i.l91; Hamlet, v.ii.289-90. 5. Romeo and Juliet, II.vi.9-15; Othello, I.iii.341-2, u.i.219-20. 6. On the Greek attitude to change, see J. B. Bury, The Idea ofProgress (London: Macmillan, 1932) pp.
    [Show full text]
  • 87 Hemingway, S. B. (Ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (New Variorum Shake
    87 Texts Hemingway, S. B. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (New Variorum Shake­ speare, Philadelphia and London, 1936). Shaaber, Matthias A. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (New Variorum Shakespeare, Philadelphia and London, 1940). Humphreys, A. R. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (Arden Shakespeare, London, 1960). Humphreys, A. R. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (Arden Shakespeare, London, 1966). Davison, P. H. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (New Penguin Shakespeare, Harmondsworth, 1968). Davison, P. H. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (New Penguin Shakespeare, Harmondsworth, 1977). Mack, Maynard (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (Signet Shakespeare, New York, 1965, 1987). Holland, Norman L. (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (Signet Shakespeare, New York, 1965). Bevington, David (ed.), Henry IV, Part 1 (Oxford Shakespeare, Oxford, 1987). Melchiori, Giorgio (ed.), Henry IV, Part 2 (Oxford Shakespeare, Oxford, 1989). The New Variorum Shakespeare editions are monumental works of scholarship for reference only. All the remaining editions cater for students' needs with critical introductions, notes, sources and so on. Long established with footnotes that are easily used, the Arden edition has always been very popular. The Signet and Penguin editions have made their mark and are quite economical. The recent Oxford editions have excellent illustrations and are strong on stage history. 88 Bibliographies, Guides and Surveys Bergeron, David M., and De Sousa, Geraldo U., Shakespeare: A Study and Research Guide (Lawrence, Kansas, 1987). Berry, Edward, 'Twentieth-century Shakespeare criticism: the his­ tories' in Stanley Wells (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies (Cambridge, 1986). Burden, Dennis H., 'Shakespeare's History Plays: 1952-1983', Shakespeare Survey 38, 1985, pp. 1-18.
    [Show full text]
  • For God's Sake, Let Us Sit Upon the Ground and Tell Sad Stories of the Death of Kings … -Richard II, Act III, Scene Ii
    The Hollow Crown is a lavish new series of filmed adaptations of four of Shakespeare’s most gripping history plays: Richard II , Henry IV, Part 1 , Henry IV, Part 2 , and Henry V , presented by GREAT PERFORMANCES . For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings … -Richard II, Act III, Scene ii 2013 WNET Synopsis The Hollow Crown presents four of Shakespeare’s history plays: Richard II , Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2, and Henry V . These four plays were written separately but tell a continuous story of the reigns of three kings of England. The first play starts in 1398, as King Richard arbitrates a dispute between his cousin Henry Bolingbroke and the Duke of Norfolk, which he resolves by banishing both men from England— Norfolk for life and Bolingbroke for six years. When Bolingbroke’s father dies, Richard seizes his lands. It’s the latest outrage from a selfish king who wastes money on luxuries, his favorite friends, and an expensive war in Ireland. Bolingbroke returns from banishment with an army to take back his inheritance and quickly wins supporters. He takes Richard prisoner and, rather than stopping at his own lands and privileges, seizes the crown. When one of Bolingbroke’s followers assassinates Richard, the new king claims that he never ordered the execution and banishes the man who killed Richard. Years pass, and at the start of Henry IV, Part 1 , the guilt-stricken king plans a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to wash Richard’s blood from his hands.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-00489-4 - The Two Gentlemen of Verona: Updated Edition Edited by Kurt Schlueter Frontmatter More information THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE general editor Brian Gibbons associate general editor A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood. From 1990 to 1994 the General Editor was Brian Gibbons and the Associate General Editors were A. R. Braunmuller and Robin Hood. THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA Professor Schlueter approaches this early comedy as a parody of two types of Renaissance educational fiction: the love-quest story and the test-of-friendship story, which by their combination show high-flown human ideals as incompatible with each other, and with human nature. A thoroughly researched, illustrated stage history reveals changing conceptions of the play, which nevertheless often fail to come to terms with its subversive impetus. Since the first known production at David Garrick’s Drury Lane Theatre, it has tempted major directors and actors, including John Philip Kemble, William Charles Macready and Charles Kean, who established a tradition of understanding which cast its shadow even on such modern productions as Denis Carey’s famous staging for the Bristol Old Vic and Robin Phillips’s for the Royal Shakespeare Company. This updated edition includes a new introductory section by Lucy Munro on recent stage
    [Show full text]
  • The Life of King Henry the Fifth Study Guide
    The Life of King Henry the The Dukes of Gloucester and Fifth Bedford: The Study Guide King’s brothers. Compiled by Laura Cole, Duke of Exeter: Director of Education and Training Uncle to the [email protected] King. for The Atlanta Shakespeare Company Duke of York: at The New American Shakespeare Cousin to the King. Tavern Earl’s of Salisbury, Westmoreland and 499 Peachtree Street, NE Warwick: Advisors to the King. Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: 404-874-5299 The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely: They know the Salic Law very well! www.shakespearetavern.com The Earl of Cambridge, Sir Thomas Grey and Lord Scroop: English traitors, they take gold Original Practice and Playing from France to kill the King, but are discovered. Scroop is a childhood friend of Henry’s. Shakespeare Gower, Fluellen, Macmorris and Jamy: Captains in the King’s army, English, Welsh, The Shakespeare Tavern on Peachtree Street Irish and Scottish. is an Original Practice Playhouse. Original Practice is the active exploration and Bates, Court, Williams: Soldiers in the King’s implementation of Elizabethan stagecraft army. and acting techniques. Nym, Pistol, Bardolph: English soldiers and friends of the now-dead Falstaff, as well as For the Atlanta Shakespeare Company drinking companions of Henry, when he was (ASC) at The New American Shakespeare Prince Hal. A boy also accompanies the men. Tavern, this means every ASC production features hand-made period costumes, live Hostess of the Boar’s Head Tavern: Nee’ actor-generated sound effects, and live Quickly, now married to Pistol. period music performed on period Charles IV of France: The King of France.
    [Show full text]
  • ROMANTIC CRITICISM of SHAKESPEARIAN DRAMA By
    ROMANTIC CRITICISM OF SHAKESPEARIAN DRAMA By JOHN g,RAWFORD Associate of Arts Texarkana College Texarkana, Texas 1956 Bachelor of Science in Education Ouachita Baptist University Arkadelphia, Arkansas 1959 Master of Science in Education Drake University Des Moines, Iowa 1962 Submitted to the faculty of .the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May, 1968 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY OCT 24 1968 ROMANTIC CRITICISM OF SHAKESPEARIAN DRAMA Thesis Approved: Thesis Adviser \ f ,A .. < \ Dean of the Graduate College ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I should like to· thank anumber·of people who helped me in many different ways during· the·preparation· of .this dissertation, notably Dr. David· S. Berkeley,·major adviser, who-lent words of encouragement, guidance, understanding, and patience; but also my committee members, Dr. Darrel Ray·, Pr~ Judson Milburn, and· .Dr~- Loyd Douglas; and. the Oklahoma State University library staff, especially Miss Helen Donart and Mrs • .:fosephine Monk. iii TABLE-OF CONTENTS Chap tel' Page. I. INTRODUCTION •••• 1 II. HAMLET .••• . ' . .. ... 29 III. ANTONY -~ CLEOPATRA • • • • . • • . • • • It • . • • . • .• • a1 ·IV. HENRYV· . ,. ". .• . 122 V. THE· MERCHANT ·QE. VENICE .- . "' . 153 VI. CONCLUSION • • ' . -. ,. 187 BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • · • . .. 191 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Of all the so-called schools of Shakespearian criticism, the Romantic has been and continues to be one of the most influential. Per- haps this is true merely because of the impor~ance which the Romantic School places upon the genius of the subj~ct, for all schools of criti- cism recognize Shakespeare's ability at creating effective drama. A more accurate answer, however, probably lies in the fact that "romanti- cism" has a broad base and encompasses so very much.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Kemp, Shakespeare, and the Composition of Romeo and Juliet
    162 Issues in Review 43 See A.J. Hoenselaars, Images of Englishmen and Foreigners in the Drama of Shake- speare and His Contemporaries: A Study in Stage Characters and National Identity in English Renaissance Drama (London and Toronto, 1992). 44 G.K. Hunter, ‘Porter, Henry (d. 1599)’, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004) http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22568 (accessed 21 Dec 2006). 45 Henslowe’s Diary, 63, 242–3. 46 See Hunter, ‘Porter, Henry’. 47 Lucy Munro, ‘Early Modern Drama and the Repertory Approach’, Research Oppor- tunities in Renaissance Drama 42 (2003), 1–33. Will Kemp, Shakespeare, and the Composition of Romeo and Juliet ‘Enter Will Kemp’, states Romeo and Juliet’s 1599 second quarto in its uniquely specific stage direction towards the end of scene 17.1 This uniqueness makes the quarto, which editors know as Q2, a crucially important witness to the play’s early performances, and to Kemp’s career with Shakespeare and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. The Romeo and Juliet quartos, however, contain a number of other curious references to Kemp which act as further evidence of the working relationship between the dramatist and his company’s star clown. A comparison of the play’s two earliest quartos, Q1 of 1597 and Q2 of 1599, shows the clown role to be both malleable and formative in the work’s ongoing generic development. A study of Kemp in the play, through the textual anomalies which separate the printed quartos, thus provides a record of some of the transformations Romeo and Juliet underwent during the first years of its existence, as the company corrected, revised, abridged, and changed the scripts in order to capitalize on and contain the famous clown’s distinctive talents.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Lear
    Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of English © Lynne Bradley, 2008 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photo-copying or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) iii Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) Abstract The temptation to meddle with Shakespeare has proven irresistible to playwrights since the Restoration and has inspired some of the most reviled and most respected works of theatre. Nahum Tate’s tragic-comic King Lear (1681) was described as an execrable piece of dementation, but played on London stages for one hundred and fifty years. David Garrick was equally tempted to adapt King Lear in the eighteenth century, as were the burlesque playwrights of the nineteenth. In the twentieth century, the meddling continued with works like King Lear’s Wife (1913) by Gordon Bottomley and Dead Letters (1910) by Maurice Baring.
    [Show full text]
  • British Renaissance Poets
    Critical Survey of Poetry British Renaissance Poets Editor Rosemary M. Canfield Reisman Charleston Southern University Salem Press A Division of EBSCO Publishing, Ipswich, Massachusetts Cover photo: Sir Walter Ralegh (© PoodlesRock/Corbis) Copyright © 2012, by Salem Press, A Division of EBSCO Publishing, Inc. All rights in this book are reserved. No part of this work may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or me- chanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval sys- tem, without written permission from the copyright owner except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews or in the copying of images deemed to be freely licensed or in the public domain. For information address the publisher, Sa- lem Press, at [email protected]. ISBN: 978-1-58765-908-9 pod ISBN: 978-1-42983-657-1 CONTENTS Contributors . iv English Poetry in the Sixteenth Century . 1 English Poetry in the Seventeenth Century. 20 Thomas Campion . 43 Thomas Carew. 53 George Chapman . 61 Abraham Cowley . 72 Richard Crashaw . 83 Thomas Dekker . 93 John Donne. 104 George Herbert. 123 Ben Jonson . 135 Christopher Marlowe. 148 Andrew Marvell . 157 Thomas Nashe . 169 Sir Walter Ralegh. 177 William Shakespeare. 188 Sir Philip Sidney . 200 Robert Southwell. 214 Edmund Spenser . 222 Henry Howard, earl of Surrey . 237 Henry Vaughan. 246 Checklist for Explicating a Poem . 255 Bibliography . 258 Category Index . 265 Subject Index. 268 iii CONTRIBUTORS Rosemary Ascherl Sidney Gottlieb Robert M. Otten Colchester, Connecticut Sacred Heart University Marymount University Elizabeth J. Bellamy Katherine Hanley Samuel J.
    [Show full text]
  • Kappale Artisti
    14.7.2020 Suomen suosituin karaokepalvelu ammattikäyttöön Kappale Artisti #1 Nelly #1 Crush Garbage #NAME Ednita Nazario #Selˆe The Chainsmokers #thatPOWER Will.i.am Feat Justin Bieber #thatPOWER Will.i.am Feat. Justin Bieber (Baby I've Got You) On My Mind Powderˆnger (Barry) Islands In The Stream Comic Relief (Call Me) Number One The Tremeloes (Can't Start) Giving You Up Kylie Minogue (Doo Wop) That Thing Lauren Hill (Every Time I Turn Around) Back In Love Again LTD (Everything I Do) I Do It For You Brandy (Everything I Do) I Do It For You Bryan Adams (Hey Won't You Play) Another Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song B. J. Thomas (How Does It Feel To Be) On Top Of The W England United (I Am Not A) Robot Marina & The Diamonds (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction The Rolling Stones (I Could Only) Whisper Your Name Harry Connick, Jr (I Just) Died In Your Arms Cutting Crew (If Paradise Is) Half As Nice Amen Corner (If You're Not In It For Love) I'm Outta Here Shania Twain (I'll Never Be) Maria Magdalena Sandra (It Looks Like) I'll Never Fall In Love Again Tom Jones (I've Had) The Time Of My Life Bill Medley & Jennifer Warnes (I've Had) The Time Of My Life Bill Medley-Jennifer Warnes (I've Had) The Time Of My Life (Duet) Bill Medley & Jennifer Warnes (Just Like) Romeo And Juliet The Re˜ections (Just Like) Starting Over John Lennon (Marie's The Name) Of His Latest Flame Elvis Presley (Now & Then) There's A Fool Such As I Elvis Presley (Reach Up For The) Sunrise Duran Duran (Shake, Shake, Shake) Shake Your Booty KC And The Sunshine Band (Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay Otis Redding (Theme From) New York, New York Frank Sinatra (They Long To Be) Close To You Carpenters (We're Gonna) Rock Around The Clock Bill Haley & His Comets (Where Do I Begin) Love Story Andy Williams (You Drive Me) Crazy Britney Spears (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party!) The Beastie Boys 1+1 (One Plus One) Beyonce 1000 Coeurs Debout Star Academie 2009 1000 Miles H.E.A.T.
    [Show full text]
  • Romeo at the Rose in 1598
    Issues in Review 149 66 Beeston is one of six men at the Red Bull named in an order for repair of the high- ways by the theatre, dated 3 October 1622; see Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 1.169 n.2. As he had managed Queen Anne’s Men there, and returned there with them after the 1617 riot, it appears that he owned, and continued to own, the theatre. 67 For ‘bifold appeal’ see discussion in Rutter, Work and Play, 110. 68 Exceptions include the Red Bull Revels’ Two Merry Milkmaids, at court in 1619/20, and Gramercy Wit in 1621; see Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 1.173. Romeo at the Rose in 1598 In two plays of the Lord Admiral’s Men — Englishmen for My Money and The Two Angry Women of Abingdon — echoes of Romeo and Juliet appear.1 The first performances of Englishmen took place at the Rose in 1598. Two Angry Women is likely to have played at the same venue in the same year. What may these echoes tell us about the ethos and practices of the Lord Admiral’s Men, about the dramatists who wrote for them, and about the company’s place in the literary and dramatic milieu of the time? I want to argue that the presence of these echoes reveals a degree of inte- gration into urban literary fashion. And I will also suggest that some of the company’s playwrights exhibit the kind of knowing playfulness that was soon to characterize the repertory of the children’s companies and which was already shaping the satires and epigrams to reach print publication at this time.
    [Show full text]