Search results
–306. 15 R. A. Foakes, Shakespeare: The Dark Comedies and the Last Plays: from Satire to Celebration (London: Routledge, 1971), p. 103. 16 Susan Snyder, ‘The Genres of Shakespeare’s Plays’, in Margreta de Grazia and Stanley Wells (eds), The Cambridge Companion to
. 30 The place of ‘lechery’ in the problem plays is often acknowledged (see Vivian Thomas, ‘Shakespeare's Problem Plays’, in Barker, Shakespeare's Problem Plays , pp. 21–8 (p. 25)). For example, Hillman explains that ‘chaste love gives way to sexual pursuit’ (Hillman, William Shakespeare , p. 7). See also Susan Snyder, ‘The Genres of Shakespeare's Plays’, in Margreta de Grazia and Stanley Wells (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 83–97 (p. 94
one or other of the Plantagenet kings (it matters little which) and its gothic design may be richly decorated but is decidedly less modern (and therefore less important) than the Monument’s Roman Doric column. To use Margreta de Grazia’s language, Freud’s mistake reveals ‘the exceptional force of that secular divide’ between medieval and modern that ‘determines nothing less than relevance’.3 It reveals Freud’s faith in this divide but also indicates the frequent difficulty of identifying the medieval. For medieval culture has been so variously reused, reappropriated
critiques, of Hamlet’s sadistic postponement of revenge until he can ‘trip him that his heels may kick at heaven’ [ Hamlet, 3,4,93 ]. As Margreta de Grazia writes, the question ‘great minds have been asking’ for centuries is ‘How could this diabolic desire be reconciled with the nobility and decency of Hamlet’s character?’ But the analogy with his Prince of Hesitation also associates Shakespeare
early modern studies in recent years, exemplified by critics such as David Kastan, Peter Stallybrass and Margreta de Grazia. A critique of the presuppositions of this movement might usefully begin precisely from this moment in de Man. 21 Aristotle, Rhetoric , trans. W. Rhys Roberts, in Complete
, 1660–1769 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992 ); Margreta de Grazia, Shakespeare Verbatim: The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991 ). 7 For a short history of such ‘Negative Capability’, mentioning the commentators cited, as well as discussion of textual and performance criticism
situate and contest existing contemporary cultural norms concerning truth, value and meaning it follows that, just as Shakespeare becomes aesthetical, he becomes political and contentious too. So that as Margreta de Grazia observes, the playwright’s work is central to: the neo-classical critical tradition of determining Beauties and Faults, an exercise that required and refined the generally interchangeable faculties of Taste, Judgement and Reason. Analysis of an author’s Beauties and Faults (Excellencies and Blemishes) involved major critical issues, the rivalry
early biographical reading of the first few lines of The Merry Wives of Windsor , in which Shakespeare puns on Sir Thomas Lucy’s name in a scene partly about deer-poaching. Margreta de Grazia notes that ‘the anecdotes are less a form of biography than of literary criticism: they record not the life Shakespeare lived between 1564 and 1616 but the impression his works made after his death’ (De Grazia
Simmes] for N[icholas Ling] and John Trundell, 1603; STC 22275), sig. F2r–v. My thanks to Katherine Duncan-Jones for discussing this passage with me. 3 Margreta De Grazia notes that all four jokes ‘give vent to the unsatisfactory conditions of his employment.’ See
For a lively re-examination of anthropomorphism, see also Lorraine Daston and Greg Mitman (eds), Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005). 3 See especially Bennett, Vibrant Matter. 4 I draw upon Hodder, Entangled, pp. 4– 5. Cf. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. B. Massumi (London: Continuum, 2004). 5 See, for example, Margreta De Grazia, Maureen Quilligan and Peter Stallybrass (eds), Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press