Shakespeare and the Eighteenth-Century Novel (original) (raw)
Related papers
This chapter is about the homage routinely paid to Shakespeare by dramatists and performers, and their ignorance of his actual works. It shows that Shakespeare’s plays were known best in their adapted Restoration forms; they were then further altered; and it was already-altered seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Shakespeare plays that provided characters, plot moments, and ‘beauties’ to be threaded through subsequent adaptations and, occasionally, imitations. Much of Shakespeare’s popularity, indeed, rested on the extent to which he had already been altered and was thus available for further alteration – his texts were seen as fundamentally unfixed and so free for remoulding and reshaping. Shakespeare was, then, assimilated through the process of adapting his adaptations: his staged works were always current, and that was because they were always substantially eighteenth-century. Though Shakespeare’s characterisation and storylines were regularly extracted for ‘popular’ theatre and puppet entertainments, his plays as a whole were relegated; only particular word-conscious ‘literary’ productions staged Shakespeare's plays in full at all. Even then, however, the playwright’s language and sentiments were updated to fit eighteenth-century mores and his stories were reduced to leave room for exciting new eighteenth-century entertainments. As all Shakespeare was adapted Shakespeare, a habit built up of staging a fictional version of Shakespeare the man to sanction the alterations of his plays. From this it was only a small step before the ‘Shakespeare’ character started to thrive in his own right on the eighteenth-century stage: extending beyond plays actually by the bard, ‘Shakespeare’ began authorizing other plays by other people. Thus both Shakespeare’s works, and ‘Shakespeare’ represent the way the eighteenth-century was able to tame and regularise its past and shape it to the present; what affected eighteenth-century dramatists was not actual Shakespeare but the works and person that they were able to make him be.
International Journal of English Studies
In the last few years there has been an increased interest within the field of Shakespeare studies in criticism. The 400 th anniversary of Shakespeare's death was celebrated with the publication of Shakespeare in Our Time. A Shakespeare Association of America Collection (Callaghan & Gossett, 2016). This varied collection of essays, mostly written by former SAA presidents, examines key concerns and new critical approaches in the ever-growing field of Shakespeare studies. More recently, The Arden Shakespeare released The Arden Research Handbook of Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism (Gajowski, 2020), twenty chapters that provide a general overview of the most influential theoretical trends in Shakespearean criticism from the mid-twentieth century until the present. Unlike the aforementioned studies in Critical Approaches to Shakespeare (1623-2000). Shakespeare for All Time (2022) Marta Cerezo Moreno does not offer a general overview, but instead an in-depth analysis of the main critical currents that dominated Shakespeare studies during the last four centuries. To acquire a better understanding of Shakespeare in our time, one ought to look first at the historical schools of thought that have strongly influenced and, also, served as the basis for contemporary Shakespeare criticism. This is precisely the reason why Critical Approaches to Shakespeare (1623-2000). Shakespeare for All Time constitutes a valuable contribution to
International Journal of English Studies, 2023
In the last few years there has been an increased interest within the field of Shakespeare studies in criticism. The 400 th anniversary of Shakespeare's death was celebrated with the publication of Shakespeare in Our Time. A Shakespeare Association of America Collection (Callaghan & Gossett, 2016). This varied collection of essays, mostly written by former SAA presidents, examines key concerns and new critical approaches in the ever-growing field of Shakespeare studies. More recently, The Arden Shakespeare released The Arden Research Handbook of Contemporary Shakespeare Criticism (Gajowski, 2020), twenty chapters that provide a general overview of the most influential theoretical trends in Shakespearean criticism from the mid-twentieth century until the present. Unlike the aforementioned studies in Critical Approaches to Shakespeare (1623-2000). Shakespeare for All Time (2022) Marta Cerezo Moreno does not offer a general overview, but instead an in-depth analysis of the main critical currents that dominated Shakespeare studies during the last four centuries. To acquire a better understanding of Shakespeare in our time, one ought to look first at the historical schools of thought that have strongly influenced and, also, served as the basis for contemporary Shakespeare criticism. This is precisely the reason why Critical Approaches to Shakespeare (1623-2000). Shakespeare for All Time constitutes a valuable contribution to
Alicante Journal of English Studies 25(2012): 19-32 Shakespeare: Revising and Re-visioning
2016
This article engages with one of the current critical and bibliographical concerns of Shakespeare studies: the collaborative nature of Shakespeare’s work. Bibliographers have identified other hands in the fabric of Shakespeare’s plays. Here the focus is Shakespeare’s collaboration in the plays of others. Three such instances will be examined; The Book of Sir Thomas More, The Spanish Tragedy and The Chronicle History of King Lear. Substantially different as these cases may be, in all of them Shakespeare is working with the materials of others. Shakespeare’s King Lear is an adaptation of the older Leir play performed by the Queen’s Men and in that sense it is a deeply collaborative work. As this essay concludes, without a model there would be nothing to stimulate, or provoke or exceed. One of the major developments in the study of early modern drama over the past two decades has been an increased focus on the collaborative processes through which plays are brought to the public.1 Inst...
An Examination of Shakespeare and Adaptations of his Works Throughout Time
There can be little point in denying that William Shakespeare is among the most influential authors in literary history. For centuries, his works have been a staple of any literary education, and have spawned countless adaptations and imitations from his craft, both popular and otherwise. The popularity of The Bard's works has also created an enormous amount of scholarly discussion that ranges in subjects from the overarching themes within the plays to the significance of lines spoken by the characters, and these discussions have overflowed into the realm of Shakespeare adaptations. Through careful and thorough research, I have compiled criticism of what I believe to be the most influential and important adaptations of Shakespeare's plays throughout history based on the scholarly discussion surrounding them. From original productions of Shakespeare to film and graphic novel adaptations, this collection will attempt to discover the inner complexities of adapting Shakespeare, as well as what merits they might hold through an examination of the scholarly discussion surrounding these pieces.
Shakespeare: Revising and Re-visioning
Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 2012
This article engages with one of the current critical and bibliographical concerns of Shakespeare studies: the collaborative nature of Shakespeare’s work. Bibliographers have identified other hands in the fabric of Shakespeare’s plays. Here the focus is Shakespeare’s collaboration in the plays of others. Three such instances will be examined; The Book of Sir Thomas More, The Spanish Tragedy and The Chronicle History of King Lear. Substantially different as these cases may be, in all of them Shakespeare is working with the materials of others. Shakespeare’s King Lear is an adaptation of the older Leir play performed by the Queen’s Men and in that sense it is a deeply collaborative work. As this essay concludes, without a model there would be nothing to stimulate, or provoke or exceed.
SEDERI Yearbook 32, 2022
A handbook is a compilation of established knowledge on a given topic. De iure, none of the essays contained in a handbook need to provide new research output; de facto, we have expectations for a handbook on Shakespearean criticism (setting aside our professional need to be served with an impeccable state of the art). Regarding state of the art, this volume passes the test with flying colors. But a challenge to be faced by a handbook's editor is to decide on the vantage point from which the abovementioned established knowledge should be organized. In "Introduction: Twenty-First Century Shakespeares" (1-18), Evelyn Gajowski alludes to a wellknown nostalgia for the Shakespeare that, she suggests, resembles that teddy bear from our childhood-a memento from a fixed, stable and comfortable past. A number of studies have, of course, challenged the interest of this fixed, comfy, and foundational Shakespeare. Rather than reformulating this challenge to traditional perspectives (whether in private rooms or classrooms), the volume reminds us that, at least in academia, traditional approaches to Shakespeare were never meant to be traditional. Disciplines such as New Criticism, Formalism, and Character Analysis once constituted vigorous and fresh perspectives. Crucially, I find that the volume shows that, after all, these are still vigorous and fresh perspectives and that new ones would not have come to the academic arena if not preceded by them. The essays show that "Foundational studies," "Challenges to traditional liberal humanism," "Matters of difference," "Millennial directions," and "Twenty-First Century directions"-the sections into which the book is divided-are applicable, fertile, productive, and, importantly, mutually enriching. One of the book's strengths is its structure: a stage-by-stage explanation of the succession of approaches to Shakespeare which