|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Shakespeare and Marx, the writer and the society.Translated by E. Koltaevskaya
https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2019-6-176-195
Abstract
The work touches on the popular concept of the relationship between society and the writing process, suggesting the relevance of certain ideas stemming from Karl Marx for the study of the Shakespearean legacy. Marx’s idea that creative potential shines at its best in society, and that personal freedom emerges through interconnectedness of individuals, rings new and up to date in the modern world and for Shakespearean studies in particular. Through examples taken from Shakespeare’s plays and examination
of professional organization of literary research in the form of academic journals and international associations, this paper argues that the Marxist image of society helps to consider literary creativity from a new viewpoint. Invoking the latest discoveries in the feld of Shakespeare biography and professional practices, especially his extensive collaboration with other playwrights, the article demonstrates how ideas of the two great thinkers and writers, Shakespeare and Marx, interact in the sphere of the best contemporary
literary-critical practices.
About the Author
Gabriel Egan
De Montfort University
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
PhD in Philology
The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, United Kingdom
References
1. A transcript of the registers of the company of stationers of London 1554-1640 AD. (1875). In: E. Arber, ed., Entries of apprentices and freemen, calls on the livery, and fnes to 2 July 1605 (5 vols). Vol. 2: Text. Entries of books to 25 June 1595. London: Privately printed
2. Barthes, R. (1977). Image–Music–Text. London: Fontana.Blayney, P. W. M. (1997). The publication of playbooks. In: J. D. Cox and D. S. Kastan, eds., A new history of early English drama. New York: Columbia U. P., pp. 383-422.
3. Boddy, G. W. (1976). Players of interludes in North Yorkshire in the early seventeenth century. North Yorkshire Country Records Ofce Journal, 3, pp. 95-130.
4. Brown, P. (2017). Early modern theatre people and their social networks. PhD. De Montfort University.
5. Bruster, D. (2006). Review of ‘Shakespeare and Marx’, by Gabriel Edan. Shakespeare Quarterly, 57, pp. 105-107.
6. Craig, H. and Kinney, A. F. (2009). Shakespeare, computers, and the mystery of authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
7. Cressy, D. (1980). Literacy and the social order: Reading and writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
8. Duncan-Jones, K. (2010). Shakespeare: an ungentle life (Arden Shakespeare). London: Methuen
9. Egan, G. (2006). ‘As it was, is, or will be played’: Title-pages and the theatre industry to 1610. In: P. Holland and S. Orgel, eds., From performance to print in early Shakespeare’s England. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 92-110.
10. Engels, F. (1940). The origin of the family, private property, and the state: In the light of the researches of Lewis H. Morgan. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
11. Erne, L. (2003). Shakespeare as literary dramatist. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
12. Erne, L. (2013). Shakespeare and the book trade. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
13. Harris, J. (1989). The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication, 40(1), pp. 11-22
14. Heinemann, M. (1985). How Brecht read Shakespeare. In: J. Dollimore and A. Sinfeld, eds., Political Shakespeare: New essays in cultural materialism. Manchester: Manchester U. P., pp. 202-230.
15. Honan, P. (2004). Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton (1573-1624). In: H. C. G. Matthew, B. Harrison and L. Goldman, eds., Oxford dictionary of national biography. Oxford: Oxford U. P.
16. Kathman, D. (2004). Richard Field (1561-1624). In: H. C. G. Matthew, B. Harrison and L. Goldman, eds., Oxford dictionary of national biography. Oxford: Oxford U. P.
17. Keenan, S. (2013). The Simpson players of Jacobean Yorkshire and the professional stage. Theatre Notebook, 67, pp. 16-35.
18. Knutson, R. L. (2001). Playing companies and commerce in Shakespeare’s time. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P
19. Marx, K. (1899). Value, price and proft: Addressed to working men. London: George Allen and Unwin.
20. Masten, J. (1997). Textual intercourse: Collaboration, authorship, and sexualities in Renaissance drama. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
21. Megill, K. (1970). The community in Marx’s philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 30(3), pp. 382-393.
22. Ostrovsky, A. (2006). Shakespeare as a founding father of socialist realism: The Soviet afair with Shakespeare. In: I. R. Makaryk and J. G. Price, eds., Shakespeare in the worlds of communism and socialism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 56-83.
23. Pitcher, J. (2004). Samuel Daniel (1562/3-1619). In: H. C. G. Matthew, B. Harrison and L. Goldman, eds., Oxford dictionary of national biography. Oxford: Oxford U. P
24. Sartre, J.-P. (1986). What is literature? London: Methuen.
25. Sisson, C. J. (1942). Shakespeare quartos as prompt-copies. Review of English Studies, 18, pp. 129-143.
26. Shaytanov, I. (2015). Review of ‘Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist’, by L. Erne. Voprosy Literatury, 3, pp. 398-401. (In Russ.)
27. Tarlinskaja, M. (1987). Shakespeare’s verse: Iambic pentameter and the poet’s idiosyncrasies. New York: Peter Lang.
28. Tarlinskaja, M. (1993). Strict stress-meter in English poetry compared with German and Russian. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
29. Taylor, G. and Egan G., eds. (2017). The new Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship companion. Oxford: Oxford U. P.
30. Taylor, G., Jowett, J., Bourus, T. and Egan G., eds. (2016). The new Oxford Shakespeare complete works: Modern critical edition. Oxford: Oxford U. P.
31. Taylor, G., Jowett, J., Bourus, T. and Egan G., eds. (2017). The new Oxford Shakespeare complete works: Critical reference edition. Oxford: Oxford U. P.
32. Wickham, G., Berry, H. and Ingram, W., eds. (2000). English professional theatre, 1530-1660. Theatre in Europe: A documentary history. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
Review
For citations:
Egan G. Shakespeare and Marx, the writer and the society.Translated by E. Koltaevskaya. Voprosy literatury. 2019;(6):176-195. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2019-6-176-195
Views:
462
Email this article 
