Shakespeare and Early Modern Political Thought

by David Armitage (Editor), Conal Condren (Editor), Andrew Fitzmaurice (Editor)

This is the first collaborative volume to place Shakespeare's works within the landscape of early modern political thought. Until recently, literary scholars have not generally treated Shakespeare as a participant in the political thought of his time, unlike his contemporaries Ben Jonson, Edmund Spenser and Philip Sidney. At the same time, historians of political thought have rarely turned their attention to major works of poetry and drama. A distinguished international and interdisciplinary team of contributors examines the full range of Shakespeare's writings in order to challenge conventional interpretations of plays central to the canon, such as Hamlet; open up novel perspectives on works rarely considered to be political, such as the Sonnets; and focus on those that have been largely neglected, such as The Merry Wives of Windsor. The result is a coherent and challenging portrait of Shakespeare's distinctive engagement with the characteristic questions of early modern political thought.

Genres: History

302 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

David Armitage is an English historian known for his writings on international and intellectual history. He is chair of the history department and Lloyd C. Blankfein Professor of History at Harvard University.

There are multiple other authors with the same name:
David T. Armitage: Academic specializing in semiconductor and liquid crystal physics
David^^Armitage: Children's book illustrator, husband of Ronda Armitage
David^^^Armitage: Children's book author
David^^^^Armitage: Author specializing in golf coaching

Reviews

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection attempts to expand scholarship on Shakespeare's engagement with the political theory of his time. While not every essay is amazing, they do bring interesting new contexts to a study of Shakespeare's works, and they also complicate recent efforts to claim the playwright as an advocate for republican government. The overall picture that one gets is of a writer fascinated with the exercise of power and extremely cynical about the possibilities for ethical political action. Since most of the contributors are historians and not literary critics, some of the readings are lacking, but its a worthwhile book to peruse.