DOCSLIB.ORG

Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, and the Nature of Fame

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, and the Nature of Fame Western Michigan University Medieval Institute Publications/Arc Humanities Press Research in Medieval and Early Modern Culture Medieval Institute Publications 2-15-2018 Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, and the Nature of Fame Robert A. Logan University of Hartford, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/mip_rmemc Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons, and the Modern Literature Commons Recommended Citation Logan, Robert A., "Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, and the Nature of Fame" (2018). Research in Medieval and Early Modern Culture. 4. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/mip_rmemc/4 This Monograph is brought to you for free and open access by the Medieval Institute Publications at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research in Medieval and Early Modern Culture by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, and the Nature of Fame RESEARCH IN MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN CULTURE Medieval Institute Publications is a program of Th e Medieval Institute, College of Arts and Sciences WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, and the Nature of Fame by Robert A. Logan Research in Medieval and Early Modern Culture MEDIEVAL INSTITUTE PUBLICATIONS Western Michigan University Kalamazoo Copyright © 2017 by the Board of Trustees of Western Michigan University Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Logan, Robert A., 1935- author. Title: Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, and the nature of fame / Robert A. Logan. Description: Kalamazoo : Medieval Institute Publications, [2018] | Series: Research in Medieval and Early Modern culture | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifi ers: LCCN 2017046070 | ISBN 9781580443197 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Antony and Cleopatra. | Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616--Characters. | Fame in literature. Classifi cation: LCC PR2802 .L64 2018 | DDC 822.3/3--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017046070 ISBN: 9781580443197 eISBN: 9781580443203 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a retrieval system, or trans- mitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every eff ort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher. To John J. Wright for his immeasurable “bounty” Contents Acknowledgments ix 1 Introduction: Viewing Shakespeare’s Kinetic 1 Characterizations 2 Antony and Cleopatra in Seventeenth-Century 17 Contexts 3 “Immortal Longings”: Shakespeare’s Perspective 31 on Fame 4 Standards of Measure in Antony and Cleopatra 53 5 “Th e Varying Shore”: Changing Perceptions, 93 Sustaining Illustriousness 6 “A Pair So Famous”: Achieving Permanent Renown 125 7 Shakespeare’s Imperishable Fame 155 Bibliography and Further Reading 181 Index 189 Acknowledgments MPOSSIBLE AS IT IS to acknowledge the many infl uences of schol- Iarly publications, conference sessions, and classroom experiences on my understanding of Antony and Cleopatra, three people who have contrib- uted either directly or indirectly or both to the following book must be mentioned. To Sara Munson Deats, I owe a career-long debt of gratitude, but am specifi cally grateful to her for commenting on a draft version of the manuscript with such care, rigor, and astute suggestions. To Erika Gaff ney, a senior editor who has guided me wisely in more than one publication, I am most grateful. Her candor, detailed suggestions, and high standards are exemplary and inspiring; as editors go, she stands out as an exceptionally superior role model. Finally, to my husband and champion, John Wright, I am thankful beyond my ability to express the depth of my gratitude. His unfailing desire to free up my time and give encouragement have displayed a magnanimity that even Antony could not match. I am truly honored to have had these three people in my life over the years but especially during the current project. Chapter 1 Introduction: Viewing Shakespeare’s Kinetic Characterizations O MUCH HAS BEEN written about the life and works of William SShakespeare that a new monograph on Antony and Cleopatra, one of the playwright’s most controversial works, might well begin with a dis- cussion of how it marks an advance over both longstanding and recent criticism in subject matter, structure, and focus, including some explana- tion of why it approaches the play from diverse vantage points. I should note fi rst that, in reviewing the scholarship on Antony and Cleopatra, I found that the fl ow of criticism has been relatively less since the turn of the twenty-fi rst century than it was during the second half of the twentieth century. Th e most penetrating criticism began to emerge in the nineteenth century (e.g., Coleridge and, on Shakespeare more generally but applica- ble to this play, Keats) and reached its strongest and most fecund period in the twentieth century (e.g., Adelman, Barroll, Bevington, Bradley, Brower, Charnes, Charney, Danby, Knight, Macdonald, Mack, Markels, Neill, Spevack, Wilson). Th e Modern Language Association Bibliography lists 304 entries of articles, book chapters, and books written between 2000 and 2016. Of the fi ve books listed, none bears on the subjects of the present study: Shakespeare’s imaginative portrayals of internationally famous historical fi gures as they measure up to self-standards of conduct and understand their relation to imperishable fame. Nor has previous criti- cism applied in a concentrated manner these subjects to Shakespeare and to this play. My contention is that Antony and Cleopatra refl ects the play- wright’s understanding of and fascination with the nature of fame more completely than any of his other works. Marvin Rosenberg’s The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra, edited and completed posthumously by his wife in 2006,1 does a scene-by-scene discussion of the play, focusing on performance, but by dividing the “view- ers and readers” (10) of the play into yay sayers and nay sayers imposes unnecessary limitations on its observations. So far during this century, the only collection of essays on the play, edited by Sara Munson Deats and 2 CHAPTER 1 entitled Antony and Cleopatra: New Critical Essays, appeared in 2005.2 Deats finds the play to be Shakespeare’s “most anamorphic drama” (1) and hopes that the “original essays written for this anthology … will sig- nifi cantly expand the critical contexts within which [the play] can be read, viewed, and analyzed” (ix). Deats’s introductory essay surveys criticism on the play and its performances on the stage and screen, while the essays in the collection range in approaches and in topics, covering new ground even when the subjects are familiar—e.g., sources, infl uences, the import of the confl ict between Egypt and Rome, stagings of the play. I have not discovered any articles that concern themselves with the combination of subjects, diversity of foci, and the methodological varia- tions of the present study. Interestingly, since the turn of the century, the fi eld of commentary on the play has not been overcrowded. Th e present study of the play’s heightened emphasis on standards of measure and their connection to fame has never been the major focus of a book or any of the articles that I have come across, especially given the present mix of approaches. Th e importance of fame as a subject for scholarly study was thrust into the spotlight in October, 2011 when the Publications of the Modern Language Association (PMLA) devoted an entire issue to “Celebrity, Fame, Notoriety” (Vol. 126, No. 4). Without treating Antony and Cleopatra specifi cally, the issue gave imposing support to my eff orts, already well underway, to address this overlooked topic, covering not only a wide range of articles on the celebrityhood of actual and fi ctional fi gures but also including a section on theories and methodologies. Most of what has been written about this topic has been in the form of a sociological study. Th e PMLA issue makes clear that there is a need for literary stud- ies on the topic, making use of sociological fi ndings of course; the issue further suggests that the subject invites close reading, an approach that has not been tried with literary texts.3 Apart from Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra have a more longstanding and renowned fame than any of the other historical characters in Shakespeare’s plays. Th us, to address Shakespeare’s concern with the nature of fame, this play, rather than his other Roman works4 or his English histories, has from the outset seemed the perfect choice. In an attempt to open up diff erent avenues to Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, my intention has always been to approach the play from several interpretive perspectives rather than from just one. Whereas the characterological, historical, cultural, and textually analytical perspectives employed here are familiar individually, as is the notion of a combination, INTRODUCTION 3 I believe that this combination provides a distinctiveness that is without precedent. The overall movement of the book is from external ground- work concerns to a close reading of the play, mindful that such a reading needs always to be related to the main subjects—the constantly shift ing complex of portrayals of standards of measure and their relation to the establishment of the imperishable fame of Shakespeare’s protagonists, as distinguished from their mere celebrityhood. The study closes with an examination of the reasons for Shakespeare’s fame, including a brief his- tory of its progress, and the parallels between the attributes of fame in the play and the attributes of his fame.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Teacher Resource Pack I, Malvolio
    TEACHER RESOURCE PACK I, MALVOLIO WRITTEN & PERFORMED BY TIM CROUCH RESOURCES WRITTEN BY TIM CROUCH unicorntheatre.com timcrouchtheatre.co.uk I, MALVOLIO TEACHER RESOURCES INTRODUCTION Introduction by Tim Crouch I played the part of Malvolio in a production of Twelfth Night many years ago. Even though the audience laughed, for me, it didn’t feel like a comedy. He is a desperately unhappy man – a fortune spent on therapy would only scratch the surface of his troubles. He can’t smile, he can’t express his feelings; he is angry and repressed and deluded and intolerant, driven by hate and a warped sense of self-importance. His psychiatric problems seem curiously modern. Freud would have had a field day with him. So this troubled man is placed in a comedy of love and mistaken identity. Of course, his role in Twelfth Night would have meant something very different to an Elizabethan audience, but this is now – and his meaning has become complicated by our modern understanding of mental illness and madness. On stage in Twelfth Night, I found the audience’s laughter difficult to take. Malvolio suffers the thing we most dread – to be ridiculed when he is at his most vulnerable. He has no resolution, no happy ending, no sense of justice. His last words are about revenge and then he is gone. This, then, felt like the perfect place to start with his story. My play begins where Shakespeare’s play ends. We see Malvolio how he is at the end of Twelfth Night and, in the course of I, Malvolio, he repairs himself to the state we might have seen him in at the beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Eras, Two Men, One Value: Fides in Modern Performances of Shakespeare’S
    Three Eras, Two Men, One Value: Fides in Modern Performances of Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra Depictions of Marc Antony and Caesar Augustus have changed dramatically between the first and twenty-first centuries, partially because of William Shakespeare’s seventeenth-century play Antony and Cleopatra. In 2006 and 2010, England’s Royal Shakespeare Company staged vastly different interpretations of this classically influenced Shakespearean text. How do the modern performances rework ancient views of Antony and Augustus, particularly in light of the ancient Roman value fides (loyalty or good faith)? This paper answers that question by examining the intersections between Greco-Roman literary-historic narratives – as received in Shakespeare’s early modern play – and the two modern performances. The contemporary versions of Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra create contrasting constructions of Antony and Augustus by modernizing the characters and/or their worlds. The 2006 rendition (directed by Gregory Doran) presents an explosive but weak-willed Antony (Sir Patrick Stewart) and a prudish yet petulant Augustus (John Hopkins). On the other hand, the 2010 adaptation (directed by Michael Boyd) shows a hotheaded and frank Antony (Darrell D’Silva) who struggles against a cold and manipulative Augustus (John Mackay). Both performances reveal the complexity of these ancient figures as the men engage with and evaluate claims upon their familial, societal, and personal fides. Representations of Antony and Augustus necessarily involve fides, though classical accounts do not always feature this term. As military and political leaders, both men led lives filled with decisions about loyalty, specifically what deserved it and in what degree. The modern dramatizations further underscore fides in their portrayals of Antony and Augustus.
    [Show full text]
  • Julius Caesar © 2015 American Shakespeare Center
    THE AMERICAN SHAKESPEARE CENTER STUDY GUIDE Julius Caesar © 2015 American Shakespeare Center. All rights reserved. The following materials were compiled by the Education and Research Department of the American Shakespeare Center, 2015. Created by: Cass Morris, Academic Resources Manager; Sarah Enloe, Director of Education and Research; Ralph Cohen, ASC Executive Founding Director and Director of Mission; Jim Warren, ASC Artistic Director; Jay McClure, Associate Artistic Director; ASC Actors and Interns. Unless otherwise noted, all selections from Julius Caesar in this study guide use the stage directions as found in the 1623 Folio. All line counts come from the Norton Shakespeare, edited by Stephen Greenblatt et al, 1997. The American Shakespeare Center is partially supported by a grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts. American Shakespeare Center Study Guides are part of Shakespeare for a New Generation, a national program of the National Endowment for the Arts in partnership with Arts Midwest. -2- Dear Fellow Educator, I have a confession: for almost 10 years, I lived a lie. Though I was teaching Shakespeare, taking some joy in pointing out his dirty jokes to my students and showing them how to fight using air broadswords; though I directed Shakespeare productions; though I acted in many of his plays in college and professionally; though I attended a three-week institute on teaching Shakespeare, during all of that time, I knew that I was just going through the motions. Shakespeare, and our educational system’s obsession with him, was still a bit of a mystery to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Guide 2016-2017
    Study Guide 2016-2017 by William Shakespeare Standards Theatre English Language Arts Social Studies TH.68.C.2.4: Defend personal responses. LAFS.68.RH.1.2: Determine central ideas. SS.912.H.1.5: Examine social issues. TH.68.C.3.1: Discuss design elements. LAFS.910.L.3.4: Determine unknown words. TH.68.H.1.5: Describe personal responses. LAFS.910.L.3.5: Demonstrate figurative language. TH.912.S.1.8: Use research to extract clues. LAFS.1112.SL.1.1: Initiate collaborative discussions. TH.912.S.2.9: Research artistic choices. TH.912.H.1.4: Interpret through historical lenses. Content Advisory: Antony and Cleopatra is a political drama fueled by intimate relationships. There are battle scenes. If it were a movie, Antony and Cleopatra would be rated “PG-13.” !1 Antony and Cleopatra Table of Contents Introduction p. 3 Enjoying Live Theater p. 3 About the Play p. 6 Plot Summary p. 6 Meet the Characters p. 7 Meet the Playwright p. 8 Historical Context p. 11 Elizabethan Theater p. 11 Activities p. 12 Themes and Discussion p. 17 Bibliography p. 17 !2 Antony and Cleopatra An Introduction Educators: Thank you for taking the time out of your very busy schedule to bring the joy of theatre arts to your classroom. We at Orlando Shakes are well aware of the demands on your time and it is our goal to offer you supplemental information to compliment your curriculum with ease and expediency. What’s New? Lots! First, let me take a moment to introduce our new Children’s Series Coordinator, Brandon Yagel.
    [Show full text]
  • Julius+Caesar+Play+Critique.Pdf
    "Julius Caesar." Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Michael L. LaBlanc. Vol. 74. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Literature Resources from Gale. Gale. Cape Cod Regional Technical High School. 4 Jan. 2011 <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=LitRG&u=mlin_s_ccreg>. Title: Julius Caesar Source: Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Michael L. LaBlanc. Vol. 74. Detroit: Gale, 2003. From Literature Resource Center. Document Type: Work overview, Critical essay Introduction Further Readings about the Topic Introduction Julius Caesar contains elements of both Shakespeare's histories and tragedies, and has been classified as a "problem play" by some scholars. Set in Rome in 44 b.c., the play describes a senatorial conspiracy to murder the emperor Caesar and the political turmoil that ensues in the aftermath of the assassination. The emperor's demise, however, is not the primary concern for critics of Julius Caesar; rather, most critics are interested in the events surrounding the act--the organization of the conspiracy against Caesar and the personal and political repercussions of the murder. Shakespeare's tragedies often feature the death of the titular character at the play's end. Many commentators have noted that Julius Caesar's unusual preempting of this significant event--Caesar is killed less than halfway through the play--diminishes the play's power early in the third act. Scholars are interested in the play's unconventional structure and its treatment of political conflict, as well as Shakespeare's depiction of Rome and the struggles the central characters face in balancing personal ambition, civic duty, and familial obligation. Modern critics also study the numerous social and religious affinities that Shakespeare's Rome shares with Elizabethan England.
    [Show full text]
  • The Not-So-Holy Shrine of Catholicism in Romeo and Juliet
    Te Not-So-Holy Shrine of Catholicism in Romeo and Juliet Margaret Rothrock “Te Not-So-Holy Shrine of Catholicism in Romeo and Juliet” questions a view of Shakespeare’s relationship to the Reformation in the early tragedy, which claims that his main Reformed concern in the play is to endorse individualistic notions of desire and repentance. Instead, the play is shown to display Reformational sensibilities in its exposure of blasphemous imagery and societal corruption as the vehicle for the lovers’ downfall. Tis reading takes a critical eye to a culturally idealized romance, allowing modern readers to consider more carefully how passion and temptation were viewed in a post- Reformational context. See and view the whole Chapter with diligence, for it is worthy David Balty is one of the few scholars who tries to to be well considered, specially that is written of the deceauing fll this gap. In his dissertation, Te Teological Bard: of the simple and vnwise common people by Idols and Images, Shakespeare and the Evolving English Reformation, he and repeated twise or thrise lest it should be forgotten. And in the argues that a Protestant emphasis on individualism is the Chapter following be these words: Te painting of the picture and driving force behind the play: the lovers are victims of a carued Image with diuers colours, entiseth the ignorant so, that societally-focused, Catholic schema which de-emphasizes he honoureth and loueth the picture of a dead image that hath no individual repentance and instead endorses social obliga- soule (Apocrypha. Wisdom 15.4-5). Neuerthelesse, they that loue tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Shame and Betrayal in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra
    Kawasaki Journal of Medical Welfare Vol. 26, No. 1, 2020 41-48 Original Paper Shame and Betrayal in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra Michael KREMENIK＊1 (Accepted July 17, 2020) Key words: betrayal, suicide, negotiation, shame Abstract The aim of this paper is to look at how William Shakespeare took the historical information available to him in the story of Mark Antony, Triumvir of Rome, and Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, and turned it into his tragic play Antony and Cleopatra. Four parts of the play are analyzed: The Battle of Actium, negotiations with Caesar Octavian, the Alexandrian War and Cleopatra’s Suicide. Did Antony know beforehand that Cleopatra and her navy would abandon the Battle of Actium and return to Egypt? In the aftermath of Actium both Cleopatra and Antony negotiated separately with Octavian. What is known about Cleopatra’s willingness to give up on Antony and defect to Octavian’s side? Was Antony really so surprised to see Cleopatra’s navy defect to Octavian? Or was he blindsided and right to feel betrayed by Cleopatra? And why did Cleopatra have a messenger inform Antony that she was dead? Was she afraid of Antony after her navy’s defection? Was she looking for sympathy? Trying to curtail his anger? Or was she hoping that Antony would kill himself and thus give her free reign to negotiate with Octavian as Queen of Egypt and not as Antony’s mistress? All of these questions will be looked at from the point of view of Shakespeare’s tragedy and how he manipulated the historical sources to write his own version of this world famous tragic love story.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tragedies: V. 2 Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    THE TRAGEDIES: V. 2 PDF, EPUB, EBOOK William Shakespeare,Tony Tanner | 770 pages | 07 Oct 1993 | Everyman | 9781857151640 | English | London, United Kingdom The Tragedies: v. 2 PDF Book Many people try to keep them apart, and several lose their lives. Often there are passages or characters that have the job of lightening the mood comic relief , but the overall tone of the piece is quite serious. The scant evidence makes explaining these differences largely conjectural. The play was next published in the First Folio in Distributed Presses. Officer involved with Breonna Taylor shooting says it was 'not a race thing'. Share Flipboard Email. Theater Expert. In tragedy, the focus is on the mind and inner struggle of the protagonist. Ab Urbe Condita c. The 10 Shakespeare plays generally classified as tragedy are as follows:. University of Chicago Press. Retrieved 6 January President Kennedy's sister, Rosemary Kennedy , had part of her brain removed in in a relatively new procedure known as a prefrontal lobotomy. The inclusion of comic scenes is another difference between Aristotle and Shakespearean tragedies. That is exactly what happens in Antony and Cleopatra, so we have something very different from a Greek tragedy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, , An Aristotelian Tragedy In his Poetics Aristotle outlines tragedy as follows: The protagonist is someone of high estate; a prince or a king. From the minute Bolingbroke comes into power, he destroys the faithful supporters of Richard such as Bushy, Green and the Earl of Wiltshire. Shakespearean Tragedy: Shakespearean tragedy has replaced the chorus with a comic scene. The Roman tragedies— Julius Caesar , Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus —are also based on historical figures , but because their source stories were foreign and ancient they are almost always classified as tragedies rather than histories.
    [Show full text]
  • Leisure, Idleness, and Virtuous Activity in Shakespearean Drama Ed Taft Marshall University, [email protected]
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Selected Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Literary Magazines Conference November 2014 Leisure, Idleness, and Virtuous Activity in Shakespearean Drama Ed Taft Marshall University, [email protected] Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/spovsc Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons Recommended Citation Taft, Ed (2008) "Leisure, Idleness, and Virtuous Activity in Shakespearean Drama," Selected Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference: Vol. 2 , Article 2. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/spovsc/vol2/iss2008/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Literary Magazines at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Selected Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Leisure, Idleness, and Virtuous Activity in Shakespearean Drama Unhae Langis Leisure, Idleness, and Virtuous Activity in Shakespearean Drama by Unhae Langis The topoi leisure and idleness abound in Shakespearean drama in complex manifestations, replete with class and gender inflections. The privileged term, leisure, modeled after Greek skolé, refers to the “opportunity afforded by freedom from occupations” (OED 2a), as enjoyed by the nobles who, excused from sustenance labor, could ideally devote themselves to “the development of virtue and the performance of political duties” (Aristotle, Politics VII.9.1328b33-a2).
    [Show full text]
  • Rome in Shakespeare's Tragedies
    Chronotopos A Journal of Translation History Angela Tiziana Tarantini & Christian Griffiths Introduction to by De Lorenzo. How Shakespearean Material was appropriated by Translators and Scholars during Romethe Fascist in Shakespeare’s Period. Tragedies 2/2019 Abstract DOI: 10.25365/cts-2019-1-2-8 Herausgegeben am / Éditée au / What follows is a prefatory commentary and an English Edited at the: Zentrum für translation of the critical introduction to the text Roma Translationswissenschaft der nelle tragedie di Shakespear Universität Wien Tragedies) published in Italy in 1924. The book contains the translations of Julius Caesare (Rome and inCoriolanus Shakespeare’s, both ISSN: 2617-3441 carried out by Ada Salvatore, and an introductory essay written by Giuseppe De Lorenzo. Our aim in translating the introductory essay by De Lorenzo is to raise awareness among non-Italian speaking scholars of how Shakespearian material was appropriated through translation by translators and intellectuals during the Fascist era. Keywords: translation, Shakespeare, fascism, Italy Zum Zitieren des Artikels Tarantini, Angela Tiziana & Griffiths, Christian (2019): Introduction to by De Lorenzo. How Shakespearean/ Pour Material citer l’article was appropriate / To cite thed by article: Translators and Scholars during the Fascist Period, Chronotopos 2 (1), 144-177. DOI: 10.25365/cts-2019-1-2-8 Rome in Shakespeare’s Tragedies Angela Tiziani Tarantini & Christian Griffiths: Introduction to Rome in Shakespeare’s Tragedies by DeLorenzo. Angela Tiziana Tarantini & Christian Griffiths Introduction to Rome in Shakespeare’s Tragedies by De Lorenzo. How Shakespearean Material was appropriated by Translators and Scholars during the Fascist Period Abstract What follows is a prefatory commentary and an English translation of the critical introduction to the text Roma nelle tragedie di Shakespeare (Rome in Shakespeare’s Tragedies) published in Italy in 1924.
    [Show full text]
  • “Much Virtue in If”: Ethics and Uncertainty in Hamlet and As You Like It David Summers Capital University, [email protected]
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Selected Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Literary Magazines Conference November 2014 “Much Virtue in If”: Ethics and Uncertainty in Hamlet and As You Like It David Summers Capital University, [email protected] Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/spovsc Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Literature in English, British Isles Commons, and the Theatre and Performance Studies Commons Recommended Citation Summers, David (2011) "“Much Virtue in If”: Ethics and Uncertainty in Hamlet and As You Like It," Selected Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference: Vol. 4 , Article 4. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/spovsc/vol4/iss2011/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Literary Magazines at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Selected Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. “Much Virtue in If”: Ethics and Uncertainty in Hamlet and As You Like It David Summers, Capital University n recent years we have seen a renewed interest in Shakespeare as an intellect, a mind at work on problems we I could properly consider “philosophical.” Not only have we seen literary critics writing about philosophy—David Bevington’s Shakespeare’s Ideas, Jonathan Bates’s The Soul of the Age and A.D.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of the Two Principal Characters of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra with Their Prototypes in Plutarch's Life of Marcus Antonius Robert G
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1949 A Comparison of the Two Principal Characters of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra with Their Prototypes in Plutarch's Life of Marcus Antonius Robert G. Lynch Loyola University Chicago Recommended Citation Lynch, Robert G., "A Comparison of the Two Principal Characters of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra with Their rP ototypes in Plutarch's Life of Marcus Antonius" (1949). Master's Theses. Paper 772. http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/772 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1949 Robert G. Lynch A CON;PARISON OF THE T"<'IO PRIiWIPAL CHARACTERS OF SHAKESP:2:J.RE' S ANTONY -AND CLEOPATRA laTH THEla PROTOTYl?ES IN PLUTARCH t S ~ OF r4ARCUS ANTONIUS BY ROBERT G. LYNCH, S.J. A 'fHESIS SUBI\~ITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRl:l:;j\IENTS FOIt THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN LOYOLA UNIVERSITY 1949 ~ ------------------------------------------------------------~ TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. Illll'RODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 1 The subject---state of question--­ comparison of Shakespee.re and Plutarch ---Shakespeare's method of prime in­ terest---why characterization instead of plot or diction---why this play--­ an objection answered---the procedure. II. CLEOPAffRA, COURTESAN OR QUEEN? •••••••••••••••••• 13 Reason for treating Cleopatra first--­ importance of Cleopatra for the trag­ edy---Shakespeare's aims: specific and general---political motives in Plutarch's Queen---real love in Shakes­ peare's---Prof.
    [Show full text]