The Revenger's Tragedy, a Jacobean revenge tragedy by Cyril Tourneur, was produced and directed by Jana Veverka, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Master of Arts degree in the Department of Theatre of the University of British Columbia, at the Dorothy Somerset Studio Theatre, from October 15th to 18th, 1969. The following is a detailed record of that production, along with the director's analysis and interpretation of the script. The Revenger's Tragedy was performed by a predominantly student cast, in costumes and setting by Michelle Bjornson, with music arranged and played by Jim Colby. This record is divided into three main sections. The first is an essay in three parts, consisting respectively of a discussion of the historical background of the play including a brief biographical note on the author, a detailed analysis of the play with reference to the significant critical interpretations available and with reference to its position in the genre of Revenge Tragedy, and concludes with the directorial concept adopted for this production. The essay is followed by a short bibliography which is not intended as a complete list of the works on or by Tourneur, but gives an indication of those which were taken into consideration during the preparation of this production. The second section is made up of the prompt script of the production, showing cuts, blocking, significant divisions of the play into units, and indication and light and music cues. The script is followed by a unit by unit analysis of each scene, briefly discussing the directorial approach taken in terms of purpose, action, motivation, dominant emotions, character dominance and particular difficulties involved. The third section is made up of various tables, records and illustrations relating directly to the. production. Included are lists of light cues, set changes, property and costume lists. Also included are transcripts of the music arranged for this production, samples of the programme and copies of the press reviews. The illustrations include colour photographs of the production, renderings of the sets, costumes and finally blue-prints of the floor plan and working drawings. / Arts, Faculty of / Theatre and Film, Department of / Graduate

Orientador: Paulo Sergio de Vasconcellos / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-07T23:06:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Almeida_AndreAlbinode_M.pdf: 593830 bytes, checksum: fe7796e9e986008eb2a029395268ef04 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006 / Resumo: O presente trabalho compõe-se de uma tradução para o português da peça Phaedra de Sêneca, bem como do estudo de seu prólogo, no que se refere especificamente, a alguns elementos que nele se apresentam e que se desdobrarão ao longo de todo o drama. Esses elementos, tais como a representação da natureza, a idéia da caça ou a própria apresentação do caráter dos personagens são, aqui analisados a partir, sobretudo, do jogo de ambigüidade que Sêneca estabelece do início ao fim dessa tragédia / Abstract: The work constitutes of a Portuguese translation of the Seneca's Phaedra as well as a study of its prologue, specially about some elements that are inserted in it and will be presented along the whole drama. Those elements such as nature representation, hunting idea or the presentation itself of the features' characters are analyzed from the point when Seneca establishes the ambiguity game from the beginning to the end of the tragedy / Mestrado / Mestre em Linguística

本篇論文由朱利安．揚恩對於尼采的詮釋來展開討論，以重新思考尼采思想中本原與共同體的問題。 一般認為尼采哲學是一種反宗教思想，其更明確地宣稱自己為反基督。揚恩則提出尼采的思想是宗教的，此正與一般的理解背道而馳。揚恩理解宗教的其中一重要面向是共同體的建立，其對於共同體的概念有一預設，於統一意義下思考共同體。並論述此種共同體思考亦見於尼采的思想中，從而論證其是一宗教思想家。 本文主要規範於尼采的早期著作《悲劇的誕生》來進行論述，以考察揚恩的論述能否成立。揚恩理解共同體作為統一整體，統一的整體得以建立有賴於一個基礎，此基礎亦即本原之意。因而本文所針對的問題正是尼采所理解的本原。揚恩論述尼采酒神精神正是此種本原，此亦如同叔本華的原一之意，由此可見其仍於一種形而上學的結構下詮釋尼采，亦顯示出其並沒有對共同體的概念作出反思。筆者認為尼采的思想正有著超出形而上學的面向，酒神作為本原已是自身區分著的。而共同體亦非一整體，而是作為分延。此與揚恩的理解不同，由此得出其所斷定尼采是一宗教思想家是難以成立的。本文以本原和共同體的問題作為切入點，從而開展出一種對於尼采早期著作的重新思考。

Thesis advisor: John Sallis / Plato’s interlocutors discuss at length about psychology, politics, poetry, cosmology, education, nature, and the gods, in short, about the things that inscribe the transcendent and the grounding poles of human life. It stands to reason that what we wish to glean from Plato’s thinking will show itself more readily if we remain attentive to the self-undermining and the subversive elements of the dialogues. I call the interpretation, which follows the shape- and, hence, meaning-shifting structure of Plato’s writing, “paradigmatic procedure.” By this I do not mean that we ought to find, explain, and then interpretively apply to the whole of Plato’s thought any particular passages from the Republic, the Timaeus, or the Statesman, which mention paradigms. However, I, following Benardete, propose that “Plato must have learned from poets” who produced epos, tragedy, comedy, and myth. This means that Plato borrows these poetic elements and form when he writes the philosophical dialogues. Paradigmatic method of interpretation is conscious of the dramatic form. It situates and analyzes the arguments made both through speeches and through actions as these arise out of the play of literary images. The latter, in their turn, are made up of the tripartite convergence between the dialogical characters, their speeches, and their deeds. Depending on the colorations that the three impart to one another, the images of Plato are comic, tragic, or, which is most often the case, they are tragicomic. The dramatic tone of a given image, once it is detected, reflects back onto the dialogical discussion or account and presents the argument in this newly discovered light. It often happens that the difference between the initial and the paradigmatic reading is so drastic that the straightforward meaning of the studied passage is undone as Plato’s writing begins to show its self-undermining nature. This does not mean that Plato’s philosophizing, also, is undone. On the contrary, when we begin to think together with and through Plato’s subversive writing, instead of retrofitting our lives to some systems that may arise out of it and instead of forcing it to substantiate our views, then we begin to get a sense for the liberating force of Plato’s philosophy. In chapter one, I explain the relationship between paradigms and the tragicomic character of Plato’s writing. Consequently, I offer a reading of select passages from the Timaeus and from the Republic. My discoveries showcase how paradigms inform and how the paradigmatic reading uncovers the tragic dimension of the Timaeus. I show how comedy shines through the, seemingly, most serious passages in the Republic. Plato’s dialogues do not strictly divide into the tragic, comic, epic, mythic, sophistic, or pre-Socratic ones, but rather, most are woven out of all of these orientations. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that within parts or passages, such as those from the Republic, for example, a given form and theme is most pronounced. I turn to the examination of tragedy in the second chapter. There, I first argue that Sophocles’ Oedipus is a tyrant and then I expose the relationship between the psychopathology of tyranny, tragedy, and poetry in books VIII and IX of the Republic. The third chapter carries on the exploration of pathology and offers an examination of tyranny and the soul in the Timaeus. Paradigmatic analysis plays up the theatricality of the Timaeus and identifies several axes around which the dialogical accounts revolve. The three main horizons are made up of nous, necessity, and dream or choric logic. These are fleshed out by the distention given to the dialogical arguments through the enmeshment of φύσις, μῦθος, and πόλις. The fourth kind of emphasis, senselessness, ushers the dialogue’s grotesquely humorous ending and prepares the readers for the considerations of comedy in the fourth chapter of the present work. The comedy of divisions, mythic tall tales, the halving and the fitting cuts, with which Plato’s Statesman is woven through and through, reveal statesmanship’s sinister underbelly. If it were not for the comedic tone, the fourth chapter argues, the monstrousness of tyranny, which is interred in all of the paradigms entertained as models of rule in the Statesman, would have remained unseen. Attunement to the comical passages and references, in the Statesman, is made expedient by an analysis of tyranny in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata. The fifth and final chapter sees to the convergence of the speciously opposite forms and themes. Tragedy is brought together with comedy, poetry with philosophy, and theater with ordinary life under the auspices of the twice-born god, Dionysus. The Dionysian, duplicitously evasive, nature is shown to be contemporaneous with the double-edged nature of shame. The contemplation of shame in Sophocles’ Oedipus and Aristophanes’ Clouds, aids the investigation of the humanity preserving and the corrupting role of shame in Plato’s Gorgias. The findings of the final chapter serve to locate the pressure points of pathology and tyranny as these recede into the tragicomic dramas of our lives. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2017. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(人間・環境学) / 甲第19078号 / 人博第731号 / 新制||人||175(附属図書館) / 26||人博||731(吉田南総合図書館) / 32029 / 京都大学大学院人間・環境学研究科共生人間学専攻 / (主査)准教授 桒山 智成, 教授 丸橋 良雄, 准教授 髙谷 修, 教授 依田 義丸 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Human and Environmental Studies / Kyoto University / DGAM

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / The authorship of the five additions to Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy remains a conundrum. Ben Jonson was first thought responsible, but a majority of scholars argue against his involvement. Other candidates have been proposed, namely Thomas Dekker, Thomas Heywood, William Shakespeare, and John Webster. Past attribution studies have mainly focused on Shakespeare due to the fourth addition, the Painter’s Scene, which has been perceived to exhibit Shakespearean quality. John Nance’s lexical study of the fourth addition makes a most compelling case: Shakespeare’s hand is almost certainly present. Warren Stevenson, Hugh Craig, Brian Vickers, and Douglas Bruster have also supported an attribution to Shakespeare; however, their research errs in assuming a single author wrote all five of the additions. This assumption is disproven by Gary Taylor’s work on the first addition, which is the first to identify Heywood, not Shakespeare, as its likely author. Taylor’s conclusion emphasizes that the additions could embody revisions by more than one playwright, such as in the case of Sir Thomas More. Therefore, the authorship of the other additions must remain conjectural until further study. My thesis is the first to independently explore the third addition’s authorship, and based on lexical evidence, the following analysis disproves claims of Shakespeare’s presence within the third addition.

<p> "It is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified." This sentence, repeated twice in The Birth of Tragedy, and standing as it does as the essential purpose and motivation of the book, seems to be an intentional turning about of the Lutheran doctrine of sole fide. Here art appropriates to itself what is essentially a religious function; art is the realm of human activity where experiences are ordered and intensified, and subsequently, where redemption is to be gained. In formulating his ideas on art and on Greek tragedy Nietzsche was influenced by Wagner. It was Wagner's music, above all else, that opened up to Nietzsche new problems for art and religion. The musical dissonance of Tristan opened up to Nietzsche the secret key to Greek tragedy. It was the recognition of the Dionysian origin of tragedy, of its origin out of the spirit of music, that enabled Nietzsche to discover the essence of tragedy free from the conventional aesthetics, which expected tragedy to answer the criterion of the plastic arts, that is, of beauty. The Birth of Tragedy announced to the world, as Nietzsche wrote to Wagner, that "practically nothing remains of traditional theories of 'AEsthetics'." In what follows an interpretation of the religious significance of this new aesthetics will be offered by way of a study of the role of Wagner's Tristan and Isolde in The Birth of Tragedy.</p> / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)