No description available.

No description available.

Critics have long neglected Shakespearean comedy's examination of the household's role in the formulation of community values by reading its references to domestic life allegorically as commentary on the ostensibly more important public realms of marketplace and state. This dissertation argues that representations of the household in the comedies are best understood as theatrical explorations of ethical inquiry as it pertains to everyday lived experience. Using contemporary sermons, political tracts, and conduct books to situate Shakespeare's plays within a larger cultural movement that was coming to understand the household as a foundation of the moral economy of early modern England, this study provides readings of The Comedy of Errors, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and The Tempest that emphasize each play's investigation of the household as a potential locus of the good life. The characters in these plays develop an awareness of themselves as members of broader communities by negotiating the particular details of household existence---by sharing meals, exchanging gifts, and falling in love. This awareness is in turn presented as a necessary component of personal happiness and a fundamental constituent of a just and merciful state. By developing an account of household life in the plays, this dissertation argues that recognizing the importance of affective domestic relations to constructions of the self as socially embedded moral agent is crucial to understanding the comedies' nuanced analysis of gender, class, and race relations.

This dissertation---"The Necessity of Affections: Shakespeare and the Politics of the Passions"---is a contribution to an important and interesting aspect of early modern thought. It examines the role of the passions or emotions in Shakespearean tragedy and in early modern politics. Shakespeare can be seen to share a perspective on tragedy and political thought with a number of other writers, some of whom were his contemporaries, and some of whom---like Thucydides and Tacitus---were classical writers. What these figures, here called 'politic historians,' have in common is an interest in using the passions as an explanatory category to reveal the states of mind of tyrants, princes and also other agents, including manipulative Machiavellians. Shakespeare's use of this politics of the passions is shown to be more acute and insightful than the rival treatments given by Stoicism, Hobbes and Machiavelli, in terms of explaining motives, agency and action. It is also argued that an understanding of the passions tells us something about tragedy, necessity and chance: namely, the need for realism about the dangers posed by those who seek to fashion or shape our minds. However, this dissertation proposes that this political realism does not go so far as to become the cynicism of realpolitik. A discussion of a number of important passages and themes in the tragedies---in particular, Hamlet, Macbeth and Coriolanus---shows how the notion of a rich and vividly articulated self plays a significant role in Shakespearean tragedy.

No description available.

Traditionally, Macbeth has been read as a morality tale about the perils of ambition. The question that has implicitly animated most treatments of the play is, "Why does Macbeth kill Duncan?" By shifting the emphasis away from Macbeth's motives for killing Duncan onto his inability to refrain from killing him, I draw attention to the striking fact that, in killing King Duncan, Macbeth acts against a fully considered better judgment not to. This suggests the possibility that Macbeth's much-discussed ambition can be understood as a subset of the broader theme of akrasia , the condition in which an agent is unable to perform an action he knows to be right. After identifying and exploring the theme of akrasia in several of Shakespeare's plays, I go on to situate Macbeth's murder of Duncan in the context of the long literary and philosophical debate on incontinence. I then suggest four interrelated explanations of Macbeth's akrasia. First, Macbeth's connection to the motivational conditions of his knowledge is shallow; he does not feel what he knows. Second, Macbeth's lack of self-control is habitual because his weak connection to the conative dimension of his knowledge prohibits him from appealing to techniques of skilled resistance. Third, his habitual lack of self-control renders him vulnerable to Lady Macbeth's taunts, which not only deplete the motivation supporting his better judgment but also prevent him from giving full deliberative weight to his better judgment. Finally, Macbeth also engages in a consistent pattern of self-deception that not only facilitates his akratic slaughter of King Duncan but also enables him to murder Banquo and MacDuff's family. My explanation of how Macbeth is able to act self-deceptively against his better evidence echoes my account of how he is able to act akratically against his better judgment: he does not feel what he knows.

William Shakespeare's plays, Richard II, 1 and 2 Henry IV and Henry V, form a tetralogy in which the conditions and nature of kingship are extensively explored. Richard II is an incapable ruler because his own desires are always uppermost in his mind while the welfare of the realm matters little to him. However, in spite of his faults, Richard II is a divinely ordained king, God's deputy on earth, and, therefore, he is the only legitimate monarch. When Henry IV usurps Richard II and has him murdered, he commits an unforgivable crime. Thus, in spite of the fact that he is a more capable ruler, his reign is plagued by rebellion and civil war. Only his son, Henry V, a legitimate ruler, can restore order to the chaotic nation. This study is an analysis of the reigns of these three monarchs. It is based on four aspects of the text: dramatic action, speeches on kingship, figurative patterns, and thematic movements.Taken as a unit, the four plays create a portrait of the ideal "statesman-king"; viewed individually, they produce added insight into the variations in interpretations of inadequate king, Henry IV, who is troubled human. of his kingship, king and its occupant. Richard II is an but a very talented poet, in contrast to a capable ruler, but a guilt-ridden, Henry V can be characterized only in terms as he is forced to subject his personal of the office self to his political role in order to be a successful monarch.

This thesis considered seven aspects of the relationship of the tragic hero with his world in the four major tragedies of Shakespear—Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, and King Lear—and in four tragedies of Sophocles—Oedipus, Antigone, Ajax and Women of Trachis. All the plays with the exception of Women of Trachis, were found depicting a hero who represented his society and had freedom of choice and action, but whose mistaken view of himself and his role in life led to conflict with the cosmos, to rebellion and a trial by suffering which resulted in a kind of insanity, and finally to self-recognition through submission and purgation.The thesis also discussed Sophocles’ and Shakespeare’s concern with justice as reflected in their use of trial imagery, and Shakespear’s indebtedness to the classic chain of being concept and to the Platonic emphasis on reason and courage in a hero, or leader.

No description available.

Typescript / Errata slip inserted / Bibliography: leaves 360-385 / viii, 385 leaves ; 30 cm. / Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University Library. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Adelaide, 1988