An Essay in Comparison: Shakespeare’s Technical Inventiveness in the Light of George Puttenham’s Arte

George Puttenham is often quoted by critics, especially in such fields as the study of court life, politics and literature, but to date very little has been done concerning the probable relation that exists between his Arte and Shakespeare’s own work, a study in comparison which yet deserves more serious investigation than has hitherto been undertaken. The manner in which Shakespeare would have made use of the critique’s analyses in The Arte of English Poesie, first published in 1589, with which the playwright and poet was most familiar, remains open to question, though it is often taken for granted. Yet his handling of this manual becomes clearly apparent as one observes how Shakespeare, when inserting within his own dramatic lines, figures of speech described and defined in The Arte, applies the rules set out in the manual, at times in parodied form, abides by a same word order, opts for the exact same images or illustrative examples as found in the section of The Arte under scrutiny of his own pen as dramatist and poet. As Shakespeare puts to use these rhetorical figures, it even transpires that he is showing off his prowess as a good, clever, and amused reader of the manual. The purpose of this study would not be to enumerate, in form of a static cataloguing of statistics, the similarities that one might encounter between both works, but rather to analyse the ways in which Shakespeare’s mimicry goes beyond a simple application of the rules of versification and rhetoric set down in The Arte. In effect, Shakespeare seems to be stretching the initial text to its limits, applying to it twists and turns, toying with the plasticity of its form, and in the process, offering, in ironic yet admirative tribute to Puttenham’s own work, elements of insight into his own mode of composition, which the well-read spectator or reader-to-follow would have been receptive to

In search of Richard II: Shakespeare’s use of eyewitness accounts of the revolution (1399-1400)

The essay attempts to reawaken the debate over Shakespeare’s use of the French chroniclers of the revolution in his writing of Richard II. Section I shows how critics and scholars are disagreed as to whether contemporary chronicle reports were consulted by Shakespeare and undergoes a thorough survey of the scholarship, the critical literature as well as the sources, with particular focus on the idea of the martyr-king, and the question as to whether these chronicle accounts were accessible in the 16th century. Examination is made of Heyward as borrowing from Shakespeare’s play. One central debate to be considered in the contradictory sources is the problem of a king who abdicated vs one who was deposed: can both versions be brought together ? Section II pays attention to particular words, like “discomfortable”, and considers the “opaque” character of Aumerle. It discusses Northumberland greeting the King alone and analyses Bolingbroke’s “triple courtesy” when he encounters Richard at Flint Castle. The conclusion is that Shakespeare worked on the various imaginative constructs that these sources offered, and found in them the quality of purporting events of the past in dramatical, poetical and memorable fashion, thus safeguarding certain national events from progressive oblivion

La politique du silence dans 1 Henry VI

L'intérêt de ce travail porte sur le rapport difficile que le personnage Richard Plantagenet entretient, dans la première partie d'Henry VI, avec le silence, et plus particulièrement avec la voix tue. C'est au coeur de celle question de la voix muselée puis lâchée que s'explique en partie la naissance du personnage monstrueux que sera son fils Richard III. Cette étude démontre comment Shakespeare exploite remarquablement la relation entre la voix et la syncope de la parole, dont le sillage tracé constitue la quintessence du théâtre. C'est la rhétorique du geste qui vient suppléer celle du verbe, reléguée au second plan. La voix est supplantée, finalement creuse et inefficace lorsque restreinte à sa seule oralité.This study focuses on the difficult relationship which the character Richard Plantagenet entertains with silence, especially with the suppressed voice, in 1 Henry VI. At the heart of the question of the voice, muzzled up then let loose, one encounters a possible and partial explanation of the birth of Plantagent's monstruous son, Richard III to be. The study demonstrates how Shakespeare skilfully exploits the interstice between the use of voice and the syncope of language, in the wake of which lies the quintessence of theater. The rhetoric of gesture takes over from where the word left off, now removed into the background. Voice is supplanted for having finally revealed itself empty and inefficient when restricted to its sole orality

‘O, me alone!’: Coriolanus in the Face of Collective Otherness

« Moi seul ». Coriolan ne cesse de revendiquer, dans le défi, son statut de personnage singulier, statut qui le distingue des citoyens de Rome, aussi bien dans ses actions, que dans le verbe, voire dans son identité même ; sa qualité d’aristocrate et son statut de militaire assoient sa différence et l’opposent fondamentalement aux roturiers de la cité. Pourtant, cette étude ne se polarisera pas sur la nature exceptionnelle du protagoniste. Notre sujet portera plutôt sur le statut théâtral et tragique des voix alternatives au héros représentées par une collectivité de personnages diverse et variée : les plébéiens, les tribuns, les soldats, les femmes de Rome ou leur ambassade, les citoyens volsques, les serviteurs d’Aufidus ou ses espions. Cette analyse mettra l’accent sur leur fonction chorique et cherchera à définir en termes dramatiques ce qui fait leur différence. Nous analyserons les rôles à la fois centraux et marginaux de cette collectivité de personnages qui habitent la dernière tragédie de Shakespeare, pour mieux apprécier les relations complexes que la pièce tisse avec le public, les voix multiples sur scène et l’action même de la tragédie.‘O, me alone!’ Despite Coriolanus’s repeated and defiant claims to being singular and standing apart from the citizens of Rome, in action, speech, and identity, and despite his aristocratic and military sense of distinction, in opposition to the commoners that make up the city, this paper is not concerned with the quality of otherness or ‘exception’ in Coriolanus, the protagonist. My subject is the dramatic status of alternative voices represented by the multifarious collectivity – the plebeians, the tribunes, the soldiers, the women of Rome and their embassy, the Volscian citizens, Aufidius’s serving men, and the spies – with the purpose of measuring their choric function within the play and of defining the nature of their respective ‘otherness’ in tragic terms. By investigating the simultaneously central and liminal roles of the collectivity in Shakespeare’s last tragedy, I propose to come to grips with the intricate relations the play weaves between the audience, the collective voices on stage, and the action

ASD-EAST Programme Evaluation Report

This document reports the key findings of the Erasmus+ KA2 Strategic Partnership Autism Spectrum Disorder – Empowering and Supporting Teachers (ASD-EAST) (Grant 2018-1-UK01-KA201-047872). ASD-EAST was established to begin to address an identified shortfall in teacher knowledge and training regarding Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and focused on developing appropriate training to support teachers to effectively include learners with ASD in education within Central/Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The project was carried out between September 2018 and August 2020. Its specific focus was on the development of training for specialist primary age range teachers (in both special school and mainstream/inclusive settings). The materials were developed and tested in three counties: Croatia, the Republic of North Macedonia (hereafter referred to as North Macedonia) and Poland

Readjusting Audience Perspective: The Aumerle Scenes in Richard II

This paper proposes a case study of the way the Aumerle scenes in King Richard II (act 5, sc. 2 and 3), handle the audience's reception to both subject and characters. The reception of these scenes has been controversial and passionate. The main focus of the paper rests on the reception that criticism has voiced concerning the Duke and Duchess of York. By studying both their separate characterisations, and their interactive roles, it is argued that the play was reworking a certain type of character encountered in comedies, the blocking but ultimately ineffective father figure, as found in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream in the role of Egeus, and in the comedies of Plautus or Terence before him, with the effect that his plays readjusted the audience's perspective: such scenes rehabilitated the subjective self by inciting it to prevail over the political subject.Cette analyse cherche à mesurer l'impact des scènes figurant le complot d' Aumerle dans Richard II (acte 5, scènes 2 et 3) - la révélation au roi Henry IV du complot d'un fils par son propre père - sur un public (contemporain de Shakespeare) plongé dans une relation complexe et controversée avec les personnages, à la fois membres d'une même famille et sujets d'un roi de facto. Quel est le rôle dramatique d'un épisode interpellant les spectateurs à la fois comme sujets de la couronne et comme individus? D'une relecture de la critique actuelle résultera une étude de genres (comédie/tragédie, mais aussi mari/femme) ainsi qu'une analyse comparative des personnages: Gaunt et York, la duchesse de Gloucester et la duchesse d'York, puis York et Egée, personnage issu du Songe d'une nuit d'été (comédie contemporaine de la tragédie Richard II, 1595).Lisak Catherine. Readjusting Audience Perspective: The Aumerle Scenes in Richard II. In: XVII-XVIII. Revue de la société d'études anglo-américaines des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. N°61, 2005. pp. 35-52

‘O, me alone!': Coriolanus in the Face of Otherness

International audienc