Shakespeare and Literary Theory
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
OUP Oxford (2010)
OXFORD SHAKESPEARE TOPICS General Editors: Peter Holland and Stanley Wells Oxford Shakespeare Topics provide students and teachers with short books on important aspects of Shakespeare criticism and scholarship. Each book is written by an authority in its field, and combines accessible style with original discussion of its subject. How is it that the British literary critic Terry Eagleton can say that 'it is difficult to read Shakespeare without feeling that he was almost certainly familiar with the writings of Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein and Derrida', or that the Slovenian psychoanalytic theorist Slavoj %Zi%zek can observe that 'Shakespeare without doubt had read Lacan'? Shakespeare and Literary Theory argues that literary theory is less an external set of ideas anachronistically imposed on Shakespeare's texts than a mode - or several modes - of critical reflection inspired by, and emerging from, his writing. These modes together constitute what we might call 'Shakespearian theory': theory that is not just about Shakespeare but also derives its energy from Shakespeare. To name just a few examples: Karl Marx was an avid reader of Shakespeare and used Timon of Athens to illustrate aspects of his economic theory; psychoanalytic theorists from Sigmund Freud to Jacques Lacan have explained some of their most axiomatic positions with reference to Hamlet; Michel Foucault's early theoretical writing on dreams and madness returns repeatedly to Macbeth; Jacques Derrida's deconstructive philosophy is articulated in dialogue with Shakespeare's plays, including Romeo and Juliet; French feminism's best-known essay is Hélène Cixous's meditation on Antony and Cleopatra; certain strands of queer theory derive their impetus from Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's reading of the Sonnets; Gilles Deleuze alights on Richard III as an exemplary instance of his theory of the war machine; and postcolonial theory owes a large debt to Aimé Césaire's revision of The Tempest. By reading what theoretical movements from formalism and structuralism to cultural materialism and actor-network theory have had to say about and in concert with Shakespeare, we can begin to get a sense of how much the DNA of contemporary literary theory contains a startling abundance of chromosomes - concepts, preoccupations, ways of using language - that are of Shakespearian provenance.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gabriel Egan (2004). Shakespeare and Marx. OUP Oxford.
Martin Harries (2000). Scare Quotes From Shakespeare: Marx, Keynes, and the Language of Reenchantment. Stanford, Calif.Stanford University Press.
Hassel (1971). Saint Paul and Shakespeare's Romantic Comedies. Thought 46 (3):371-388.
Richard Green Moulton (1903/1969). The Moral System of Shakespeare. [Folcroft, Pa.Folcroft Press.
Stephen Wilkinson (2007). Eugenics and the Criticism of Bioethics. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):409 - 418.
Agnes Heller (2000). The Absolute Stranger: Shakespeare and the Drama of Failed Assimilation. Critical Horizons 1 (1):147-167.
Frederick Turner (ed.) (1999). Shakespeare's Twenty-First Century Economics: The Morality of Love and Money. OUP USA.
Michael Ryan (1999). Literary Theory: A Practical Introduction: Readings of William Shakespeare, King Lear, Henry James, "the Aspern Papers," Elizabeth Bishop, the Complete Poems 1927-1979, Toni Morrison, the Bluest Eye. [REVIEW] Blackwell Publishers.
Ceri Davies (1995). Shakespeare and Ovid J. Bate: Shakespeare and Ovid. Pp. Xvi+292. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Cased, £35. The Classical Review 45 (02):408-409.
Paul Yachnin & Desmond Manderson (2010). Shakespeare and Judgment: The Renewal of Law and Literature. The European Legacy 15 (2):195-213.
M. R. Ridley (1944). F. S. Boas: Aspects of Classical Legend and History in Shakespeare. (British Academy Shakespeare Lecture, 1943.) Pp. 28. London: Milford, 1943. Paper, 3s. Net. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 58 (02):68-69.
Peter Milward (1972). The Divided Self in Shakespeare and Hopkins. Thought 47 (2):253-270.
Drew Daniel (2013). The Melancholy Assemblage: Affect and Epistemology in the English Renaissance. Fordham University Press.
John Finnis (2005). “The Thing I Am”: Personal Identity in Aquinas and Shakespeare. Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (2):250-282.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-01-31
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?