WORD LINKS BETWEEN “TIMON OF ATHENS” AND “KING LEAR”

1978 ◽  
Vol CCXXIII (apr) ◽  
pp. 147-149
Author(s):  
ELIOT SLATER
Keyword(s):  
PMLA ◽  
1941 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 369-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. C. Bald

The Folger Shakespeare Library possesses a number of separate plays, all from the Shakespearian Third Folio, and all bearing unmistakable signs of theatrical annotation. They were acquired by Mr. Folger from a variety of sources: the majority were bought from a bookseller in Munich, one was purchased in London, and another came with the Warwick Castle collection of Shakespeariana. There are nine plays in all: The Comedy of Errors, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Twelfth Night, The Winter's Tale, Henry VIII, Timon of Athens, Macbeth, King Lear, and Othello, but three of them—The Merry Wives, Macbeth, and Othello—are imperfect. It soon became clear that they were all from the same original volume, which, apparently, had belonged to Halliwell-Phillipps and was dismembered by him. The bindings of the separate plays—half leather, with boards of marbled paper or purplish-brown cloth—are obviously all the work of one binder, and are similar to the bindings of other books which have passed through Halliwell-Phillipps's hands. In addition, his handwriting is to be found in six of them: in The Merry Wives and Macbeth there is an inscription on one of the preliminary flyleaves, and in the other four there is a mere “C. and P.” on a fly-leaf at the end of the book.


Author(s):  
Neema Parvini

This chapter examines the link between sin and dirtiness, disease or contagion in Shakespeare by looking at some key examples in King Lear, Timon of Athens, Othello, Richard III, Hamlet,Othello, and Macbeth. It also compares Shakespeare’s sometimes gruesome descriptions of degradation with those found in the Protestant theology of Richard Hooker and John Calvin, who each provide dark visons of human impurity. It also cross references Catholic teachings on sin as embodied in Thomas Aquinas. In the process, the chapter attempts to discover what was sacred to Shakespeare.


Author(s):  
Hester Lees-Jeffries

This chapter sets Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Troilus and Cressida, Timon of Athens, and King Lear in the context of classical and early modern satire—most notably the satiric vogue of the 1590s. It explores the language of disease (especially syphilis) and purgation, and considers the relationship between tragedy and satire, which is often focused on the figure of the malcontent. In particular, it suggests that satire is inherently undramatic, however theatrical the figure of the railing malcontent, such as Thersites, may initially appear.


PMLA ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
William H. Matchett

The association of ideas as manifested in Shakespeare’s image clusters, discussed by Caroline Spurgeon and Edward Armstrong, was used by R. W. Chambers as a test of authorship for the Sir Thomas More fragment. Some unstudied associations tie Iago to one side of Shylock and the More fragment to another, providing further evidence of Shakespeare’s authorship and the probable date of composition. Image clusters similarly suggest that King John preceded Richard II; and King Lear, Timon of Athens. Our consideration needs to be broadened beyond exclusively verbal terms: Shakespeare’s imagination is fully theatrical. Association is not a mere stimulus-response limiting of the imagination; it provided flexible and wide-ranging systems of intermeshing concepts at Shakespeare’s most creative moments.


Author(s):  
David Hershinow

Chapter 3 argues that Shakespeare exposes the formal underpinnings of the fantasy of unstoppable individual critical agency through his depiction of wise fools. In Twelfth Night, Timon of Athens, and King Lear, Shakespeare’s citation of diogeneana gives form to a series of wise fools designed to provoke a collision between his period’s antithetical assessments of Cynic critical activity: one that reckons Diogenes’ freedom of speech to be singularly effective, and one that lambasts Diogenes for being inconsequential, a mere parasite-jester who has renounced all claims to seriousness. This double gesture is most evident in a passage unique to the Quarto Lear in which the Fool defines, and simultaneously performs, the critical activity of a “bitter fool.” Here, especially, Shakespeare’s composite characterization of the Cynic stance challenges viewers to comprehend that the “bitter fool” offers only the appearance of a robust critical practice—that its stridently critique-oriented posture exists in form but not in substance.


Author(s):  
Neema Parvini

This chapter argues that Shakespeare’s response to the moral foundation of authority is not located in the speeches of his political leaders, because authority is not synonymous with power. Authority must be earned, whereas power is usually bestowed. Therefore, we must look to the relationships between characters of different social rank, especially between servants and their masters. In Shakespeare’s plays these relationships often take the form of freely chosen employment as opposed to feudal oaths of fealty. This is because paid employment became the new norm as early capitalism flourished in the 1500s, and the last remnants of the old feudal order were swept away. Focusing on the relationship between Adam and Orlando in As You Like It, the contrast between Kent and Oswald in King Lear, and the relationship between Flavius the steward and Timon in Timon of Athens, it contends that in Shakespeare’s plays virtuous authority entails reciprocal good service. Good service is found not in mere obedience, but in a sense of duty, which might on occasion directly contradict the wishes of the master. If authority is mistaken for oppressive power, and if liberty is mistaken for subversion, tyranny follows.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document