In Robert Frost's Visionary Gift: Mining and Minding the Wonder of Unexpected Supply, William F. Zak provides groundbreaking analysis to well over one hundred of Frost's lyrics, considering each poem as integral to the poet's singular "constellation of intention." Beyond biography, this book offers extended, close readings of Frost's oeuvre, resulting in a case built up from deftly examined particulars. Zak discusses how the pastoral mode Frost adopts is no depleted, homespun idiom retreating from modernism's complexities, but a self-conscious determination to assume the mantle of his predecessors (Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth, Emerson, and Thoreau) so central to the pastoral inheritance directing his thought. Frost's version of pastoral represents no escape from life's stresses, but the most constructive and life-sustaining means to address life's struggles 'head on': that is (as Frost declared) to "take life by the throat" in song in order to 'see what we're made of.' A revaluation of Frost's major lyrics, this book makes a case for Frost as America's preeminent philosophical poet. The unfortunate effect of Frost's early detractors' claim that he was merely an ironic and equivocal anecdotalist has for too long relegated his work to the second tier of the modernist poetic pantheon. There was never anything disparately occasional nor self-protectively detached about his ambition; for him "if poetry isn't understanding all, the whole world, then it isn't worth anything." Our illuminations may be but "specks," but they nonetheless remain "considerable," evidence of a graced re-source-fullness abounding within us, granting us "our place among infinities." Lit by 'consideration's' illuminations-both of mind and heart-we remain, happily, free to "make snug in the infinite" darkness within and without us. This study reconfirms Robert Graves' exalted claim for Frost as the "first American poet who could be honestly reckoned a master poet by world standards."

Hamlet's Problematic Revenge: Forging a Royal Mandate provides a new argument within Shakespearean studies that argues the oft-noted arrest of the play's dramaturgical momentum, especially evident in Hamlet's much delayed enactment of his revenge, represents in fact a succinct emblem of the "arrested development" in the moral maturity of the entire cast, most notably, Hamlet himself-as the unifying disclosure and tragic problem in the play. Settling for unreflective and short-sighted personal gratifications and cold comforts, they truantly elbow aside a more considerable moral obligation. Again and again, all yield this duty's commanding priority to a childishly self-regarding fear of offending those in nominal positions of power and questionable positions of authority-figures, like Ophelia and Hamlet's fathers, for instance, demanding an unworthy deference. While Hamlet fails to consider with loving regard the improved well-being of the larger community to which he owes his existence and, fails to interrogate the moral adequacy of the Ghost's command of violent reprisal (two things he never does nor even contemplates doing), "all occasions" in the play "do inform against" him and merely "spur a dull revenge"-not, as he interprets his own words, arguing the need for greater urgency in his vendetta, but, instead, to "inform against" the criminality of that very course itself. His revenge therefore can be argued as "dull," not because he cannot summon the wherewithal to enact it more bloodily, but because in obsessing about it ceaselessly he remains unreceptive to its "dull" or "unenlightened" opposition to the evil he hopes to eradicate. Hamlet does not avenge his father; this book argues that he becomes him. Amidst a wealth of previously unremarked figurative mirrorings, as well as much of the seemingly digressive material in Hamlet within Shakespearean studies, Hamlet's Problematic Revenge brings to light a new interpretation of the tragic problem in the play.

Hamlet's Problematic Revenge: Forging a Royal Mandate provides a new argument within Shakespearean studies that argues the oft-noted arrest of the play's dramaturgical momentum, especially evident in Hamlet's much delayed enactment of his revenge, represents in fact a succinct emblem of the "arrested development" in the moral maturity of the entire cast, most notably, Hamlet himself-as the unifying disclosure and tragic problem in the play. Settling for unreflective and short-sighted personal gratifications and cold comforts, they truantly elbow aside a more considerable moral obligation. Again and again, all yield this duty's commanding priority to a childishly self-regarding fear of offending those in nominal positions of power and questionable positions of authority-figures, like Ophelia and Hamlet's fathers, for instance, demanding an unworthy deference. While Hamlet fails to consider with loving regard the improved well-being of the larger community to which he owes his existence and, fails to interrogate the moral adequacy of the Ghost's command of violent reprisal (two things he never does nor even contemplates doing), "all occasions" in the play "do inform against" him and merely "spur a dull revenge"-not, as he interprets his own words, arguing the need for greater urgency in his vendetta, but, instead, to "inform against" the criminality of that very course itself. His revenge therefore can be argued as "dull," not because he cannot summon the wherewithal to enact it more bloodily, but because in obsessing about it ceaselessly he remains unreceptive to its "dull" or "unenlightened" opposition to the evil he hopes to eradicate. Hamlet does not avenge his father; this book argues that he becomes him. Amidst a wealth of previously unremarked figurative mirrorings, as well as much of the seemingly digressive material in Hamlet within Shakespearean studies, Hamlet's Problematic Revenge brings to light a new interpretation of the tragic problem in the play.

A Mirror for Lovers: Shake-speare's Sonnets as Curious Perspective, by William F. Zak, seeks to identify in Shake-speare'e sonnet sequence the structural and thematic features of the satirical tradition born in Plato's Symposium. Through this study, Zak traces the power of an idea to endure, re-animate, and enrich itself through time: Plato's discrimination of the true nature of love in The Symposium. Born anew in its medieval reincarnations (The Romance of the Rose, The Vita Nuova, and The Canzoniere of Petrarch), the tradition begun in Plato's Symposium was then resuscitated in the Elizabethan sonnet sequence revival, most notably in Shake-speare's Sonnets. With extended examination of all the texts in the Q manuscript, A Mirror for Lovers makes a case for the mutually illuminating relationship among the sonnets to the fair young man and the dark lady, "A Lover's Complaint," and the mysterious dedication that until now have never received attention as an integral symbolic matrix of meaning.

This revaluation of Shakespeare's most seductive tragedy, Antony and Cleopatra, allies itself with neither George Bernard Shaw and Philo's Roman judgment of the lovers as "strumpet and fool"-premised on the idle sensuality and feckless self-regard ever evident in the regal pair-nor with the many at the opposite critical pole who have found themselves swept up, to some extent at least, in the "grand illusion" of the lovers themselves as peerless figures transcending the very deaths to which Caesar's heartless predation drives them. Nor does it seek some middle way, settling into a comfortable agnosticism that claims the poet's view of the pair remains too ambiguous to resolve. Instead, by mining a wealth of metaphoric cross-references and ironical, mirroring figurations provided by the tragedy's subsidiary characterizations, this new analysis argues that Shakespeare's assessment of the lovers is in fact unambiguous: Antony and Cleopatra unknowingly settle for functioning merely as two more of the play's eunuchs fanning the flames of their self-destructive passions for one another when they could have realized the new heaven and new earth Antony promised his queen had their "intercourse" with one another been more vigorously complete. Not alone their deaths, but their entire experience is this play is but a search for "easy ways to die" rather than the quest is should have been to live more richly yet and generate new life beyond their respective notorieties as separate individuals to be celebrated.