16th-century and Renaissance Literature

In 1589 the Privy Council encouraged the Archbishop of Canterbury to take steps to control the theatres, which had offended authority by putting on plays which addressed ‘certen matters of Divinytie and of State unfitt to be suffred’. How had questions of divinity and state become entangled? The Reformation had invested the English Crown with supremacy over the Church, and religious belief had thus been transformed into a political statement. In the plentiful chronicle literature of the sixteenth century, questions of monarchical legitimacy and religious orthodoxy became intertwined as a consequence of that demand for a usable national past created by the high political developments of the 1530s. Divinity and State explores the consequences of these events in the English historiography and historical drama of the sixteenth century. It is divided into four parts. In the first, the impact of reformed religion on narratives of the national past is measured and described. Part II examines how the entanglement of the national past and reformed religion was reflected in historical drama from Bale to the early years of James I, and focuses on two paradigmatic characters: the sanctified monarch and the martyred subject. Part III considers Shakespeare's history plays in the light of the preceding discussion, and finds that Shakespeare's career as a historical dramatist shows him eventually re-shaping the history play with great audacity. Part IV corroborates this reading of Shakespeare's later history plays by reference to the dramatic ripostes they provoked.

The Face of Mammon studies the gold and silver coins of sixteenth‐century England as they are articulated in literary writing. Landreth argues that the coinage of the sixteenth century is a very different object from the money that we know—not only formally but conceptually, in that modern money is the object proper to a discourse, economics, that had not yet taken shape in the sixteenth century. Instead, a Renaissance coin is an arena contested among multiple early modern discourses that each seek to encompass it, such as ontology, ethics, and politics. The writers central to this study—among them Spenser, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Nashe, and Donne—use the coin to demonstrate the interdependence of these competing discourses as they converge upon a single, ubiquitous object. For these authors, an understanding of the world that humans make for themselves relies upon understanding how the material world is made. The small circumference of the coin brings these contending worlds into contact.

The reassessment of the ‘two cultures’ of art and science has been one of the most urgent areas of research in literary and historical studies over the last fifteen years. The early modern period is an ideal site for such an investigation precisely because of the pre-disciplinary nature of its science. The central focus of this book falls upon the wide-ranging practices of what will come to be called “science” prior to its separation into a realm of its own, one of the legacies of the renaissance and its encounter with modernity. This book offers a new critical examination of the complex and mutually-sustaining relationship between literature and science—and, more broadly, art and nature—in the early modern period. Redefining literature and art as knowledge-producing practices and, at the same time, recasting the practices of emergent science as imaginative and creative and literary, this book argues for a more complex understanding of early modern culture in which the scientific can be said to produce the literary and the literary can be said to produce the scientific. Drawing upon recent work in the field of science studies and focusing on selected works of major writers of the period—including Bacon, Donne, Galileo, and Shakespeare, among others—this book recovers a range of early modern discursive and cultural practices for a new account of the linked histories of science and literature.

The subjects of this book are the subjects whose subjects are themselves. Narcissus so himself himself forsook, And died to kiss his shadow in the brook. In accusing the introspective Adonis of narcissistic self‐absorption, Shakespeare's Venus employs a geminative construction—‘himself himself’—that provides a keynote for this study of Renaissance reflexive subjectivity. Through close analysis of a number of Shakespearean texts—including Venus and Adonis, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, and Othello— this book illustrates how radical self‐reflection is expressed on the Renaissance page and stage, and how representations of the two seemingly extreme figures of the narcissist and self‐slaughterer are indicative of early modern attitudes to introspection. Encompassing a broad range of philosophical, theological, poetic, and dramatic texts, this study examines period descriptions of the early modern subject characterized by the rhetoric of reciprocation and reflection. The narcissist and the self‐slaughter provide models of dialogic but self‐destructive identity where private interiority is articulated in terms of self‐response, but where this geminative isolation is understood as self‐defeating, both selfish and suicidal. The study includes work on Renaissance revisions of Ovid, classical attitudes to suicide, the rhetoric of friendship literature, discussion of early modern conceptions of vision, and an extended discussion of narcissism in the epyllion tradition. Sustained textual analysis offers new readings of major Shakespearean texts, allowing familiar works of literature to be seen from the unusual and anti‐social perspectives of their narcissistic and suicidal protagonists.

Celebrating the quatercenary of publication of the first translation of Don Quixote, this book addresses the ongoing debates about the lost Jacobean play The History of Cardenio, based on Cervantes, and commonly claimed to be by William Shakespeare and John Fletcher. It also re-examines Lewis Theobald’s 1727 adaptation Double Falsehood. Offering new research findings based on a range of approaches — new historical evidence, employment of advanced computer-aided stylometric tests for authorship attribution, early modern theatre history, literary and theatrical analysis, study of the source material from Cervantes, early modern relationships between Spanish and English culture, and recent theatrical productions of both Double Falsehood and modern expansions of it — this book throws new light on whether the play deserves a place in Shakespeare’s canon and/or Fletcher’s. The book establishes the dates, venues, and audience for two performances of Cardenio by the King’s Men in 1613, and identifies for the first time evidence about the play in seventeenth-century documents. It also provides much new evidence and analysis of Double Falsehood, which Theobald claimed was based on previously unknown manuscripts of a play by Shakespeare. His enemies, especially Pope, denied the Shakespeare attribution. Debate has continued ever since. While some contributors advocate sceptical caution, new research provides stronger evidence than ever before that a lost Fletcher/Shakespeare Cardenio can be discerned within Double Falsehood. This book explores the Cardenio problem by reviving or adapting Double Falsehood, and demonstrates that such practical theatre work throws valuable light on some of the problems that have obstructed traditional scholarly approaches.