; and to JuliusCaesar in Philaster , The Maid's Tragedy, The Captain , The Chances (1616–25), Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt , The Little French Lawyer , The Double Marriage , The Lovers’ Progress (1619–24, rev. Massinger 1634), and possibly Henry VIII .
As significant as these echoes are, however, in this chapter I will focus exclusively on Fletcher's reuse of building materials from Shakespeare's Rome for the construction of his own. While this exploration will concentrate at greater length on Fletcher
Shakespearean body is mired in expressive complexity. The Shakespearean swoons of interest to me here are abyssal: they stage a fall into the dark depths of a body that is inaccessible to the modes of ‘reading’ attempted by the characters of the play-world. In this chapter, I focus on pivotal swoons in three plays: Much Ado About Nothing , JuliusCaesar and Othello .
Falling, fainting and shaking are crucial to the action of these plays, and to the trajectories of their characters. These are also plays in which bodies
In Bellum Ciuile 5, JuliusCaesar – who has already cut a swathe through Italy and conducted a destructive campaign in Spain – finally ends up battling with nature itself, when he attempts to sail from Brundisium to Dyrrachium. In the confident expectation that with Fortune on his side a storm will prove no obstacle to his desires, he embarks upon the sea in a tiny boat, amidst the protests of the owner, the lowly Amyclas ( BC .5.476–721). Before setting off, however, he attempts to impress and bribe the humble sailor:
chapter are abyssal: they stage a fall into the dark depths of a body that is inaccessible to the modes of ‘reading’ attempted by other characters in the plays. I read swoons in Much Ado About Nothing (1598), JuliusCaesar ( c .1599) and Othello (1604), because these are plays in which bodies are explicitly presented as texts to be read and deciphered – and swooning reveals such processes of reading to be complex, fraught, and/or tragically flawed. Each swoon I draw into focus here occurs when the body cannot be parsed through the signifying systems available
mound of rank sweat and bad breath in Shakespeare's JuliusCaesar :
the rabblement hooted and clapped their chapped hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar – for he swooned and fell down at it. And for mine own part, I durst not laugh for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air.
deployment of Henry Savile's essay ‘The End of Nero and the Beginning of Galba’ as a source. I have also brought attention to the implications of his depiction of Roman women as exceptionally passive in the play, argued for a negative portrayal of stoicism, and illuminated the play's relationship with Shakespeare's JuliusCaesar , especially as regards the construction of the character of Maximus as oddly reminiscent of the example of Brutus.
As for Bonduca , I have brought new elements to the discussion of the play's sceptical attitude to colonial
arouse at a gathering of early modernists would be with Shakespeare and his Titus Andronicus (1584–94), JuliusCaesar (1599), Antony and Cleopatra (1606–07), Coriolanus (1607–09), and Cymbeline (1609–11). Then, someone would be likely to think of Jonson and his Poetaster, or His Arraignment (1601), Sejanus His Fall (1603), and Catiline His Conspiracy (1611). Very few people, if any, would think of Fletcher. As it happens, his name has very infrequently appeared in print in connection with said phrase.
Representations of Irish political leaders in the ‘Haughey’ plays of Carr, Barry and Breen
money in thy purse’ as the more apposite. But
the Shakespeare play which most proliferates intertextually in Charlie
is JuliusCaesar. Charlie himself, in recalling his meeting with Margaret
Thatcher, invokes the figure of Caesar and his ‘great campaigns’ (p. 43)
to lament the fact that ‘I would never be tested on a great stage’. The
references to the play itself are most prominent when he and his backers
are considering the heave against Jack Lynch. To P.J. Mara’s query as
to whether it is too soon, Haughey responds: ‘There is a tide [in the
affairs of men,] which
plays (Lavinia in Titus Andronicus ; Portia and Calpurnia in JuliusCaesar ; Octavia in Antony and Cleopatra ; Volumnia, Virgilia, and Valeria in Coriolanus ). Yet Shakespeare's Roman women are not only more evenly distributed across the different tragedies; they also generally seem to have more relevance – at least plot-wise – in the plays in which they appear than their Fletcherian counterparts: four of these have (very) minor roles (Ardelia, Phorba, Claudia, and Marcellina in Valentinian ); two may be described as supporting characters with a limited influence
Ralph Knevet's Supplement of the Faery Queene (1635) is a narrative and allegorical work, which weaves together a complex collection of tales and episodes, featuring knights, ladies, sorcerers, monsters, vertiginous fortresses and deadly battles – a chivalric romp in Spenser's cod medieval style. The poem shadows recent English history, and the major military and political events of the Thirty Years War. But the Supplement is also an ambitiously intertextual poem, weaving together materials from mythic, literary, historical, scientific, theological, and many other kinds of written sources. Its encyclopaedic ambitions combine with Knevet's historical focus to produce an allegorical epic poem of considerable interest and power. This new edition of Knevet's Supplement, the first scholarly text of the poem ever published, situates it in its literary, historical, biographical, and intellectual contexts. An extensive introduction and copious critical commentary, positioned at the back of the book, will enable students and scholars alike to access Knevet's complicated and enigmatic meanings, structures, and allusions.