Search results

Open Access (free)
Personal Shakespeare
Steve Sohmer

himself to writing about, say, Napoleon isn’t so much writing about Napoleon as exploiting the Emperor to interrogate a question-issue-event that is dogging his writer’s mind. There are persons who write about Napoleon for Napoleon’s sake. They are historians. Simply put, Shakespeare’s plays are more personal than we have recognized. He has populated them with his

in Reading Shakespeare’s mind
Steve Sohmer

. One assessment of the perfection and holiness of seven – exactly contemporaneous with Shakespeare’s writing of Julius Caesar – can be found in A New Treatise of the Right Reckoning of Yeares, and Ages of the World, and mens lives (1599) by Robert Pont (1524–1606). 19 In his preface Pont explains, ‘there is a marvelous sympathie of periodes of times, in

in Reading Shakespeare’s mind
Steve Sohmer

thereby (as it were to England, Fraunce, Italie, and Spaine) what fauour hee was in with her Maieste. 14 Clearly, Nashe did not have Harvey’s text before him. He was writing from memory and mis-remembered Harvey’s Latin. Harvey had written: ‘de Regiae Manus osculatione’ – which Nashe remembered as ‘ De Osculo

in Reading Shakespeare’s mind
Steve Sohmer

: INT. WILL’S ROOM. DAY. A blank page. A hand is writing: TWELFTH NIGHT. We see WILL sitting at his table.     WILL (VO) My story starts at sea ... a perilous voyage to an unknown land ... a shipwreck EXT. UNDERWATER. DAY. Two figures plunge into the water.     WILL (VO) the wild waters roar and heave ... the brave

in Reading Shakespeare’s mind
Steve Sohmer

Shakespeare was not an individual woman but a type – another remarkable notion: To those of us steeped in the sonnet tradition much of this language seems a witty response to the conventional virtuous beauty of courtly love ... The whole point of sonnet writing was to weave variations on

in Reading Shakespeare’s mind
Steve Sohmer

even now are difficult to detect and parse. Private memorials on stage With the writing of King John in 1596 (if not years before), William Shakespeare began a practice of inscribing into his texts tributes to deceased friends, family, and benefactors. The most conspicuous of these (if not to us then perhaps to his colleagues and some first

in Reading Shakespeare’s mind
Steve Sohmer

have been Yarmouth, 140 miles north of London. But in The Unfortunate Traveler, or the Life of Jack Wilton ( 1594 ), Nashe – writing in the first person – fantasized wide-ranging travels in both space and time. 3 Perhaps Jack Wilton was the link in Shakespeare’s mind connecting Nashe to the peripatetic life. Paul was also the New Testament authority on things

in Reading Shakespeare’s mind
Steve Sohmer

diuell, if it stood vpon his saluation, cannot do it.’ 20 By issuing this challenge – and writing ‘ probabile ’ rather than ‘ possibile ’ – wasn’t Nashe asking (if not begging) for ever more close reading which could only enhance his reputation as a social scold? Another contemporary critic of society, Ben Jonson (1572–1637), complained in his

in Reading Shakespeare’s mind
Steve Sohmer

evident to Shakespeare himself, since he added to it or What You Will. It might be called Twelfth Night or by whatever other name.’ 18 In July 1887, Hermann Conrad writing in the Preussische Jahrbücher inferred that Shakespeare, after puzzling over a title for his play, threw up his hands, crying, ‘What to call it, I know not.’ Modern editors have done no

in Reading Shakespeare’s mind
Open Access (free)
A tradition of indirection
Author: Rachel E. Hile

This book examines the satirical poetry of Edmund Spenser and argues for his importance as a model and influence for younger poets writing satires in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The book focuses on reading satirical texts of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in relation to one another, with specific attention to the role that Edmund Spenser plays in that literary subsystem. The book connects key Spenserian texts in The Shepheardes Calender and the Complaints volume with poems by a range of authors in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, including Joseph Hall, Thomas Nashe, Tailboys Dymoke, Thomas Middleton, and George Wither to advance the thesis that Spenser was seen by his contemporaries as highly relevant to satire in Elizabethan England. For scholars of satire, the book offers a fuller discussion and theorization of the type of satire that Spenser wrote, “indirect satire,” than has been provided elsewhere. A theory of indirect satire benefits not just Spenser studies, but satire studies as well. For scholars of English Renaissance satire in particular, who have tended to focus on the formal verse satires of the 1590s to the exclusion of attention to more indirect forms such as Spenser’s, this book is a corrective, an invitation to recognize the importance of a style of satire that has received little attention.