Explore the vast range of titles available.

As an integral part of his work as a political playwright and dramaturge, Bertolt Brecht concerned himself extensively with the theory of drama. He was convinced that the Aristotelian ideal of audience catharsis through identification with a hero and the resultant experience of terror and pity worked against his goal of bettering society. He did not want his audiences to feel, but to think, and his main theoretical thrusts - 'Verfremdungseffekte' (de-familiarization devices) and epic theater, among others - were conceived in pursuit of this goal. This is the first detailed study in English of Brecht's writings on the theater to take account of works first made available in the recent German edition of his collected works. It offers in-depth analyses of Brecht's canonical essays on the theater from 1930 to the late 1940s and early GDR years. Close readings of the individual essays are supplemented by surveys of the changing connotations within Brecht's dramaturgical oeuvre of key theoretical terms, including epic and anti-Aristotelian theater, de-familiarization, historicization, and dialectical theater. Brecht's distinct contribution to the theorizing of acting and audience response is examined in detail, and each theoretical essay and concept is placed in the context of the aesthetic debates of the time, subjected to a critical assessment, and considered in light of subsequent scholarly thinking. In many cases, the playwright's theoretical discourse is shown to employ methods of 'epic' presentation and techniques of de-familiarization that are corollaries of the dramatic techniques for which his plays are justly famous. John J. White is Emeritus Professor of German and Comparative Literature at King's College London.

This essay offers a reading of two well-known early sixteenth-century plays, John Bale’s Kynge Johan and John Heywood’s Play of the Wether , in terms of their Henrician (and possibly early Elizabethan) political resonances. Unlike most such critical accounts of these plays, which often consider them in terms of their relevance to specific episodes of ecclesiastical or courtly controversy, this study suggests that Bale and Heywood represent a particular political practice in order to stage a more broadly theoretical political intervention. I argue that the plays’ interest in acts of petitioning—the licit process through which English subjects may seek redress of grievances from the courts, Parliament, or the Crown—serves to legitimate the condition of need as a basis for broad political participation. In Kynge Johan and The Wether , material need and its more abstract cousin “necessity,” expressed through acts of petitioning, are capable of performing remarkable reorientations of political and ethical duty, as well as of power more generally. Not all of these reorientations, as Kynge Johan in particular demonstrates, are positive, and both plays are conscious of and hesitant about the potentially destabilizing force of need. Yet ultimately, both plays move toward a more collective and less proto-absolutist political model in which need can, through acts of petitioning, be articulated and managed.

This essay argues that Patrick Hamilton's neo-Victorian thriller Gas Light (1938)—which has been treated as a principally psychological drama—enacted a wider critique of the commercial forces unleased by industrial capitalism. The play's Victorian setting was pivotal to this critique. Drawing on critical infrastructure studies and the energy humanities, I situate Gas Light 's performance within the transitional energy culture of 1930s Britain, and I closely incorporate the industrial and literary legacies of the Victorian coal-gas industry into my reading of the play. Reading Gas Light in the context of its debut run at a gaslit theater restores a forgotten material history that underpins the concept of psychological gaslighting.

This essay argues that Hamlet should be read not merely as a domestic or dynastic tragedy, but as a political–philosophical ALLEGORY in which language itself becomes a site of crisis. Beginning with Hamlet’s contemptuous reply to Polonius—”Words, words, words” (2.2.191)—the play dramatizes the death of philosophy in the state, where speech is emptied of wisdom and reduced to surveillance, platitude, or performance. Had events unfolded differently, Prince Hamlet might have become a philosopher-king in the Platonic sense, ruling through reflection and justice. Instead, succession ambiguity, Claudius’s manipulative election, and the corruption of logos foreclose that possibility. The Mousetrap, often interpreted as a test of guilt, can also be read as a thought experiment about succession itself: a theatrical attempt to expose the fragility of legitimacy in an elective monarchy. Hamlet’s wager that words and representation can secure truth collapses, leaving only suspicion and violence. Polonius parodies philosophy’s degeneration into bureaucratic rhetoric, while Horatio inherits the burden of words as memory—tasked with telling a story that remains undecidable. Drawing on Plato, Foucault, Kewes, and recent scholarship, the essay contends that Shakespeare stages the foreclosure of philosophical sovereignty: a tragedy for Denmark and, symbolically, for the world.

Motivated by the absurd tradition in the 1950s, in the following years, Pinter transitioned comedy of menace to the memory plays. With the political drama booming in the 1960s although the playwrights of the period such as John Arden, Arnold Wesker, Edward Bond have written down overtly political plays, Pinter continued to write implicit plays unlike the writers of that time. By the time the political drama was on the decline, with the effect of globalization, Pinter wrote very overtly political plays after the 1980s. As a matter of fact, Pinter revived the New British Theatre with his third period plays such as One for the Road and Mountain Language. Pinter who gained prominence with the latest period plays, has also exceeded the borders of his country; therefore, he referred to the social and political cases he observed in other countries. He addressed several international issues, including the Gulf War, American dominance over other countries, and disempowerment of minority rights. He repudiated the borders pertained at his interviews, even sharply criticised the British politics with courage. Pinter, who was awarded the Nobel Prize, did not hesitate to criticize the policies of England and America with great heart, even in his Nobel speech. Pinter, who handled only British issues in his own country in the early period plays, became the voice of many countries in the latest period plays. Pinter, who never admitted to being a political playwright, was almost always annoyed being tagged, and tried to be the voice of whole world while cutting across all boundaries. This paper discusses Pinter’s domestic sphere in his early phase turns into a universally oppressive space filled with violence, rape, death and surveillance in his late plays. It is seen that the dramatised space in Pinter’s late plays has been widened both literally and figuratively. The image of “room” is superseded by the global cities and foreign countries as the locus of oppression and the centre of political power. His late stage goes beyond the world of the theatre as the paper will reveal that Pinter's political play entitled as Ashes to Ashes cuts across all boundaries.Keywords: Pinter, international issues, playwright who has no boundaries, political drama, Ashes to Ashes

The close connections between Edward de Vere's personal and public lives--his hereditary position, education, talents, travels, intellectual pursuits, marriage, and literary patronage--to the events depicted in Hamlet and to the literature, law, and philosophy alluded to in the text make a potent argument in supporting his authorship claim to this masterpiece. If Shakespeare is a pseudonym for Edward de Vere, and Horestes and Hamlet are related as topical commentaries on the political crises surrounding Mary Queen of Scots, then a deeper understanding of the tragedy's importance in English history and literature is possible.

Adaptations of Shakespeare’s Roman plays have frequently addressed political topics at the time of their production. As a result, Shakespeare’s Rome, already a site of political conflict and power struggle, has found different and at times opposing significations in its new contexts. The present study is set to explore how two recent adaptations of the Roman plays in Iran, There Will Be Blood (2019, based on Titus Andronicus ) and Coriolanus (2019 and 2020), have situated Shakespeare’s texts in Iran’s contemporary political context. The study argues that Shakespeare’s Roman plays have created a platform for Iranian theatre directors to address the political issues and debates in Iran, a country in which it is extremely difficult to produce a political play. Jürgen Habermas’s idea of legitimation crisis and Ernesto Laclau’s concept of the empty signifier underpin the analysis of the adaptations.

This pragmatic analysis of Richard III examines how conversational strategies, speech acts, and Gricean maxims reveal the true intentions and nature of Richard and other characters. While Shakespeare’s history plays are often explored through social, cultural, historical, and political lenses, this approach focuses on understanding characterization through linguistic cues, especially Richard’s manipulative use of language. Pragmatics, a branch of linguistics, delves into the intended meanings behind interactions using linguistic signals, emphasizing the dynamics of conversation and context. In Richard III, speech acts—encompassing not just spoken words, but also the surrounding context—are crucial for understanding Richard’s ability to deceive, manipulate, and persuade. These speech acts not only convey what is said, but also the strategies employed to achieve specific goals, such as persuasion or domination. By applying pragmatic principles and speech act theory, this analysis enhances our understanding of Shakespeare’s characters and their interactions. Gricean maxims—quality, quantity, relevance, and manner—serve as a framework for exploring how Richard often flouts or manipulates these principles to control dialogue and perceptions. This combined approach reveals the layers of meaning and strategic language use that shape Richard’s character and the broader implications of his interactions within the play. This shows that Shakespeare’s theater continues to provide a compelling lens for exploring the relationship between language, politics, and identity, enhancing our comprehension of how literature both reflects and influences the socio-political context in which it was created.

France's New Deal is an in-depth and important look at the remaking of the French state after World War II, a time when the nation was endowed with brand-new institutions for managing its economy and culture. Yet, as Philip Nord reveals, the significant process of state rebuilding did not begin at the Liberation. Rather, it got started earlier, in the waning years of the Third Republic and under the Vichy regime. Tracking the nation's evolution from the 1930s through the postwar years, Nord describes how a variety of political actors--socialists, Christian democrats, technocrats, and Gaullists--had a hand in the construction of modern France.

This chapter contains sections titled: Santayana, George to symbol