Abstract:In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of Shakespeare scholars, including Israel Gollancz (1894), H.R.D. Anders (1904), J. Churton Collins (1904), and Gilbert Murray (1914) wrote convincingly of Shakespeare’s debt to classical Greek drama. However, in the century since, most scholars and editors have repeatedly held that Shakespeare was not familiar with Greek drama. In Classical Mythology in Shakespeare (1903), Robert Kilburn Root expressed the opinion on Shakespeare’s ‘lesse Greek’ that presaged this enduring dismissal: “It is at any rate certain that he nowhere alludes to any characters or episodes of Greek drama, that they extended no influence whatsoever on his conception of mythology.” (p. 6) This century-long consensus against Attic dramatic influence was reinforced by A.D. Nutall, who wrote, “that Shakespeare was cut off from Greek poetry and drama is probably a bleak truth that we should accept.” (Nutall, 2004, p.210) Scholars have preferred to maintain that Plutarch or Ovid were Shakespeare’s surrogate literary mediators for the playwright’s adaptations from Greek myth and theatre. Other scholars, however, have questioned these assumptions, including Laurie Maguire, who observed that “invoking Shakespeare’s imagined conversations in the Mermaid tavern is not a methodology likely to convince skeptics that Shakespeare knew Greek drama.” (p. 98) This near-universal rejection of Greek drama as Shakespeare sources have profound philological implications. Indeed, this essay argues that the proscription against recognizing the Attic canon as an influence in Shakespeare has been driven by the belief that Will Shakspere of Stratford had, at most, an education that was Latin-based. The examples show that the real author had to have been exposed to both the Greek language and the Greek dramatists. Evidence for alternative candidates, including Edward de Vere, shows that many were schooled in Greek and that some even collected and supported translations of Greek works. It is my contention that Shakespeare’s dramatic imagination was actually fired by the Greeks, and Shakespeare research has clearly suffered from a century of denial.

Huon of Bordeaux: First Modern English Translation by Catherine M. Jones and William W. Kibler. Medieval & Renaissance Text Series. New York and Bristol: Italica Press, 2021, xxiii, 329 pp.

In Agincourt's Shadow: Hoccleve's "Au treshonorable conpaignie du Iarter" and the Domestication of Henry V

Dante’s Divine Comedy in Early Renaissance England

Making Amends: The Transformation of Theseus and the Feminization of Marriage in A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Shakespeare in Berlioz, Berlioz in Shakespeare

Tudor Humanism and the Roman Past: A Background to Shakespeare

Three Translators in Search of an Author: Linguistic Strategies and Language Models in the (Re)translation of Shakespeare’s Plays into Catalan

An Early Modern Canon Formation of English Literature in Hesperides,or the Muses' Garden

Notre-Dame of Paris

A New Approach To Shakespeare: A Review Of Shakespeare In The Post-War English Drama

Searching for Shakespeare in the Stars

The Readers of 17Th-Century English Manuscript Commonplace Book Hesperides, or the Muses’ Garden

Shakespeare Starts a New Century Travel in China: A Comparative Analysis of the Two New Chinese Re-Translations of Hamlet

Henchard, the 19~(th) Century Oedipus

Victor Hugo's Notre‐Dame de Paris on the Nineteenth‐Century London Stage

Literarischer Transfer auf Umwegen: Ironisches Sprechen im ›Löwenritter‹ Chrétiens de Troyes und im Kreuzlied Hartmanns von Aue, ›Ich var mit iuweren hulden‹ (MF 218,5)

“The Play’s the Thing”: Re-imagining Shakespeare’s The Tempest in Forbidden Planet, Prospero’s Books and Hag-Seed

Revisiting the Classics and the New Media Environments: Shakespeare Re-Told by Jeanette Winterson, Margaret Atwood and Edward St. Aubyn

A Century of Scholarly Neglect: Shakespeare and Greek Drama

Reading Heliodorus' Aethiopica

How Far Is Love From Charity?: The Literary Influence of Reformation Bible Translation