Shakespeare's English and Roman History Plays: A Marxist Approach
Explains how an adherent to the so-called Christian interpretation of Shakespeare can be a Marxist critic. Shakespeare's history plays, Siegel contends, were shaped by the Christian humanist ideology of the new Tudor aristocracy and are subtle works of art whose characters are complex creations, not mere spokesmen for social classes.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
The Marxist Approach and Shakespearean Studies Today
Shakespeares English and Roman History Plays
Shakespeares View of English History
Richard III and the Spirit of Capitalism
Falstaff and His Social Milieu
Other editions - View all
accept American Antony aristocracy audience become believe bourgeoisie brings Brutus Caesar called Cambridge cause characters Christian City civil Cleopatra concept concerned Coriolanus critics crown death discussion divine drama economic Edited Edward Elizabethan Empire England English history English Studies expressed fall Falstaff feudal followed force gain give God's hand Henry history plays honor human idea ideology images Italy John Julius killing kind king Knight Levin literary Literature living London Marx Marxist means medieval natural nobility noble Oxford past political present prince production providence reading rebellion refer regarded reign Renaissance representative republic Richard Robert Roman history Rome ruling says sense Shake Shakespeare Shakespeare's Histories social society speaks spirit Stage statement subjects suggest tells things Tillyard tion tradition Tragedy true Tudor turn understanding University Press virtues York
Page 22 - The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, ie, the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production...
Page 16 - Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic base. It is not that the economic position is the cause and alone active, while everything else only has a passive effect. There is, rather, interaction on the basis of the economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself.