A study of the poetry of Hardy, Yeats, and Larkin in relation to their shared preoccupation with time, change, and loss, the most ancient and fertile theme in lyric and reflective verse, known to earlier English poets as mutability. Though the importance of the socio-political and ideological context is in every case acknowledged, the literary-history context is viewed as primary: hence the introductory survey of foundational Renaissance and Romantic poets with whose work Hardy, Yeats, and Larkin were thoroughly familiar. Although a preoccupation with the subject of time and change in the work of these three poets is a critical commonplace, no one has ever isolated it for special attention, or used it to link them either together or with their historical predecessors. This is an entirely new approach to their work. The critical methodology employed is evidential and analytical rather than theoretical, focussed throughout on the meaning and the mood of each poem and the distinctive individuality of each poet.

Demonstrating and defending a method of close reading and historical contextualisation of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, this collection of essays by Tom McAlindon combines a number of previously published pieces with original studies. The volume includes six interpretative studies, all but one of which involve challenges to radical readings of the plays involved, including Henry V, Coriolanus, The Tempest, and Doctor Faustus. The other three essays are critiques of the claims and methods of radical, postmodernist criticism (new historicism and cultural materialism especially); they illustrate the author's conviction that some leading scholars in the field of Renaissance literature and drama, who deserve credit for shifting attention to new areas of interest, must also be charged with responsibility for a marked decline in standards of analysis, interpretation, and argument. Likely to provoke considerable debate, this stimulating collection is an important contribution to Shakespeare studies.

A study of the poetry of Hardy, Yeats, and Larkin in relation to their shared preoccupation with time, change, and loss, the most ancient and fertile theme in lyric and reflective verse, known to earlier English poets as mutability. Though the importance of the socio-political and ideological context is in every case acknowledged, the literary-history context is viewed as primary: hence the introductory survey of foundational Renaissance and Romantic poets with whose work Hardy, Yeats, and Larkin were thoroughly familiar. Although a preoccupation with the subject of time and change in the work of these three poets is a critical commonplace, no one has ever isolated it for special attention, or used it to link them either together or with their historical predecessors. This is an entirely new approach to their work. The critical methodology employed is evidential and analytical rather than theoretical, focussed throughout on the meaning and the mood of each poem and the distinctive individuality of each poet.

This title was first published in 2002: An intensive study of Shakespeare's most ambitious and complex achievement in the historical mode. The book offers an account of the play's critical history from 1700 until the 1980s, deals with the aspects of Tudor history relevant to an understanding, and offers close readings of the text structured around what the author believes to be the play's three dominant concepts: time; truth; and grace. In an attempt to correct what he sees as a certain falsification of critical history, the author aligns his account of the play's reception with one of its major preoccupations - the inescapable and informing presence of the past.

Demonstrating and defending a method of close reading and historical contextualisation of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, this collection of essays by Tom McAlindon combines a number of previously published pieces with original studies. The volume includes six interpretative studies, all but one of which involve challenges to radical readings of the plays involved, including Henry V, Coriolanus, The Tempest, and Doctor Faustus. The other three essays are critiques of the claims and methods of radical, postmodernist criticism (new historicism and cultural materialism especially); they illustrate the author's conviction that some leading scholars in the field of Renaissance literature and drama, who deserve credit for shifting attention to new areas of interest, must also be charged with responsibility for a marked decline in standards of analysis, interpretation, and argument. Likely to provoke considerable debate, this stimulating collection is an important contribution to Shakespeare studies.

This title was first published in 2002: An intensive study of Shakespeare's most ambitious and complex achievement in the historical mode. The book offers an account of the play's critical history from 1700 until the 1980s, deals with the aspects of Tudor history relevant to an understanding, and offers close readings of the text structured around what the author believes to be the play's three dominant concepts: time; truth; and grace. In an attempt to correct what he sees as a certain falsification of critical history, the author aligns his account of the play's reception with one of its major preoccupations - the inescapable and informing presence of the past.

Enter Roderigo and Iago.] RODERIGO Tush, never tell me; I take it much unkindly That thou, Iago, who hast had my purse As if the strings were thine, shouldst know of this, - IAGO 'Sblood, but you will not hear me: - If ever I did dream of such a matter, Abhor me. RODERIGO Thou told'st me thou didst hold him in thy hate. IAGO Despise me, if I do not. Three great ones of the city, In personal suit to make me his lieutenant, Off-capp'd to him: -and, by the faith of man, I know my price, I am worth no worse a place: - But he, as loving his own pride and purposes, Evades them, with a bombast circumstance Horribly stuff'd with epithets of war: And, in conclusion, nonsuits My mediators: for, "Certes," says he, "I have already chose my officer." And what was he? Forsooth, a great arithmetician, One Michael Cassio, a Florentine, A fellow almost damn'd in a fair wife; That never set a squadron in the field, Nor the division of a battle knows More than a spinster; unless the bookish theoric, Wherein the toged consuls can propose As masterly as he: mere prattle, without practice, Is all his soldiership. But he, sir, had the election: And I, -of whom his eyes had seen the proof At Rhodes, at Cyprus, and on other grounds, Christian and heathen, -must be belee'd and calm'd By debitor and creditor, this counter-caster; He, in good time, must his lieutenant be, And I-God bless the mark his Moorship's ancient. RODERIGO By heaven, I rather would have been his hangman. IAGO Why, there's no remedy; 'tis the curse of service, Preferment goes by letter and affection, And not by old gradation, where each second Stood heir to the first. Now, sir, be judge yourself Whether I in any just term am affin'd To love the Moor.