Great Drama Research Articles

A new concept of Alexander Ostrovsky's early creative work and his formation as a playwright

In the first volume of Alexander Ostrovsky's collected works, the universality of the methodological approach and the completeness of the coverage of the great playwright's texts is demonstrated. The analysis of critical reviews of Alexander Ostrovsky's works is highly regarded, and the Orthodox dominant of his creative work is conclusively identified. In the first volume of the collected works, the process of birth of Russian realistic drama is traced and the diverse ways of the national theatre development are planned.

Шекспир и Пушкин

Modern researchers pay attention first of all to the typological connections of Pushkin's works, but it seems to us that the productive method of studying the similarity of English-Russian communications in this context is not associated with specific figurative-thematic or genrethematic calls, not with the commonality of individual motifs and, finally, not with the concepts of the Russian poet’s responses to specific works of the English bard, but with the genetic textand meaning-generating links of the Russian poet’s creativity with Shakespeare’s poetics in nuce. No wonder M. P. Alekseev noted that Shakespeare was for Pushkin “the problem of worldview”. On the other hand, it seems fundamental that E. W. M. Tillard justified the need to introduce the category “picture of the world” in relation to the analysis of Shakespearean dramas, because, as S. Coleridge said, in any particular, the great playwright opened the universal, potentially existing, and opened in the image of homo generalis. In this retrospect, the statement of H. Bloom, the author of the bestseller “Western Canon”, “there is a man before and after Shakespeare” entails another consideration: “there is a man before and after Pushkin”. Both are the creators of the latest drama. A student of M. P. Alekseev, great comparatist Yu. D. Levin thought: “In the history of Russian experme... Pushkin is the Central figure. It was he who carried out the creative processing of Shakespeare’s poetics, which was then mastered by the development of Russian drama.” About the exceptional importance of Pushkin in the arrangement of Shakespeare’s poetics on Russian soil indirectly expressed in his notebooks Pushkin's friend P. A. Vyazemsky: “What threw our dramatic art on the narrow road of the French? – he asked. – Thin Sumarokov tragedy. If he had been an imitator of Shakespeare, we would have perfected his thin imitations of the English, as we have now perfected his pale imitations of the French.” Brilliant poets were led to creative achievements by impartial comprehension of human nature, and on this way they showed the image of man in the fullness of his own historical reality. This was expressed primarily in the independent dignity of poetry, which neither Shakespeare nor Pushkin was able to find support for religious, rhetorical, philosophical or political considerations that were not in its favour. No wonder the context of Pushkin’s creativity, V. S. Nepomnyashchy believes, not literature, not culture, not history even as such, but existence itself in its universal understanding, integral unity. It is noteworthy that, according to G. Bloom, and Shakespeare’s plays give “us the opportunity to join what can be called the primary aesthetic value.” The link between the two poets was the “grandeur of the idea”, the integrity of the artistic consciousness, the ability, as Heraclitus said, “to see everything as one”, and the deep psychological development of an unpredictable human character.

Visions of Tragedy in Modern American Drama

Visions of Tragedy in Modern American Drama

Identity, politics and restriction in Athol Fugard’s art: Writing and liberalism in apartheid South Africa

Athol Fugard enjoys a place of honour in the South African and generally African canon as a great dramatist, creative collaborator, director and as an artist who was able to create a distinctive theatre that blended African and Western forms of performance. His multidimensional (rather than a given perspective) approach to art enabled him to retain his literary leaning and identity. This article examines his often downplayed but equally potent contribution to the struggle against apartheid through theatre. It also discusses his multilayered identity and how it affected his compositions and play-making, as well as the paradoxes associated with even his most political plays. For instance, while he promoted a belief in ‘the personal being inextricably political’, in his plays, in public utterances he denied being political. The article further examines some of the plays’ contested politics through a discussion of the diverse facets of restriction employed by the apartheid regime to gauge and suppress politics in the arts at the time and the underground activities of the playwright and his actor-collaborators who had to contend with the apartheid machinery that was designed – overtly or covertly – to suffocate any form of art deemed subversive and/or anti-apartheid. Generally, the article is anchored in the relation between intention, context and text or performance.

Shakespeare-The Brand

William Shakespeare is known to the world as one of the greatest dramatist in the history of English Literature. It is unusual to attribute either Shakespeare or his works in the world of marketing, yet it is the fact that, even after 450 years, Shakespeare is still a recognizable and powerful brand in the world of today. Shakespearean festival was still being celebrated all over the world. Royal Society of Shakespeare still performs Shakespearean dramas every year, in more than twenty languages. It shows the brand image of Shakespeare, having in the world today. Aristotle, a Greek Philosopher, in his attempt to understand poetry and drama, expressed his view in his famous work Poetics that, both drama and poetry appeals to the emotions of a reader and spectators. The success of a drama, depends on the extent to which, a dramatist can able to capture the emotions of the audience. It is necessary for writers to have a unique brand personality to market their art. Every writer has their own set of target audience and follows various strategies to satisfy them. This paper deals with, how Shakespeare employed different strategies to create his own brand image, that helped him positioning his art among his target audience, thus ending up creating one of the greatest and powerful brand image in the History.

When grief has mates: King Lear and the politics of happiness

When grief has mates: King Lear and the politics of happiness

Arthur Miller's Century: Essays Celebrating the 100th Birthday of America's Great Playwright

Arthur Miller's Century: Essays Celebrating the 100th Birthday of America's Great Playwright

WILLES, Margaret. A Shakespearean botanical QUEALY, Gerit and HASEGAWA-COLLINS, Sumié. Botanical Shakespeare. An illustrated compendium of all the flowers, fruits, herbs, trees, seeds, and grasses cited by the world's greatest playwright BENNETT, Jackie. Shakespeare's gardens STRONG, Roy. The quest for Shakespeare's garden

WILLES, Margaret. <i>A Shakespearean botanical</i> QUEALY, Gerit and HASEGAWA-COLLINS, Sumié. <i>Botanical Shakespeare. An illustrated compendium of all the flowers, fruits, herbs, trees, seeds, and grasses cited by the world's greatest playwright</i> BENNETT, Jackie. <i>Shakespeare's gardens</i> STRONG, Roy. <i>The quest for Shakespeare's garden</i>

From mai–juin ’68 to Nuit Debout: shifting perspectives on France’s anti-police

In the great drama that was mai–juin 1968, the police were unquestionably a central actor. In particular, they played a pivotal role in transforming what started out as a relatively minor, student-based rebellion into a nationwide movement that brought the Gaullist regime to the brink of collapse. The 2016 Nuit Debout protest movement drew strong comparisons to the 1968 events, with many wondering whether France stood to experience a repeat of those heady days. This article will argue that the inability of Nuit Debout to capture the imagination of the general public in a similar fashion to what happened in 1968 is not solely the result of the exceptional and divergent contexts. Instead, it will contend that this failure is also to be understood through an appreciation of shifting perspectives on France’s anti-police. Such positive developments, it will be argued, have ironically been shaped as a result of the 1968 events and the manner in which they are most commonly remembered.

ІСТОРІЯ СТАНОВЛЕННЯ ТА РОЗВИТКУ МЕДИЧНОЇ ФІЗИКИ

Мета роботи – висвітлити історичні шляхи розвитку медичної фізики, розкрити закономірності становлення і розвитку фундаментальних фізичних та медичних знань, їхній взаємозв’язок, показати їх еволюцію і значущість для минувшини і сьогодення.Основна частина. У статті розглянуто початковий етап історії становлення та розвитку медичної фізики, який забезпечив вплив на напрямок шляху розвитку фізики і медицини в майбутньому і який нерозривно пов’язаний із загальною історією людства. Показано, як змінювалась наукова картина світу упродовж тисячоліть, розглянуто взаємодоповнювальність і спадкоємність фізики та медицини.Саме знання історії розвитку науки забезпечує вплив на напрямок шляхів розвитку науки і сприяє її прогресу.Як влучно зазначив Джон Бернал, “Лише ... знання історії може застерегти вчених – заради того престижу, яким вони користуються, – від ролі сліпих та безпомічних пішаків у великій сучасній драмі використання та зловживання наукою”.Висновок. У статті розглянуті етапи становлення атомного вчення, а також ятромеханічного (метафізичного) напрямку у науці (XVI–XVIII ст.), представники якого намагалися пояснити всі фізіологічні явища і процеси на основі механіки, вважаючи, що хвороба є наслідком порушень закономірностей руху окремих найдрібніших частинок організму, який являє собою своєрідну механічну машину.

Upstart Crow Series 2

Reviewed by: Upstart Crow Series 2 James Alsop Upstart Crow Series 2Presented by BBC Two. First broadcast 09 11- 12 25, 2017. Written by Ben Elton. Directed by Richard Boden. Produced by Myfanwy Moore and Gareth Edwards. Music by Grant Olding. With David Mitchell (Will Shakespeare), Liza Tarbuck (Anne Hathaway), Gemma Whelan (Kate), Rob Rouse (Bottom), Mark Heap (Robert Greene), Harry Enfield (John Shakespeare), Paula Wilcox (Mary Arden), Tim Downie (Kit Marlowe), Helen Monks (Susanna), Steve Speirs (Richard Burbage), Dominic Coleman (Henry Condell), Spencer Jones (William Kempe), Jocelyn Jee Esien (Lucy), and others. I wonder how much time over the course of his career William Shakespeare spent on the commute between London and Stratford-upon-Avon. For all of the critical conjecture about Shakespeare's pre-1592 "lost years," we rarely hear discussion of the lost hours and weeks—even months—of his professional existence that Shakespeare must have spent embroiled in the three- or four-day journey between work and his family home. How might those trips have shaped him? Was he, like so many of us, frustrated by unexpected delays caused by "unusually wet leaves" on the track? Might he, too, have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous coach replacement services? Such scenarios are the subject of one of the best running gags in Ben Elton's irreverent Shakespeare sitcom, Upstart Crow, the second series of which aired last autumn on BBC Two. To get a sense of the show's comedic flavor one need look no further than the scenes in which Will (David Mitchell, in full Soapboxflow) greets his wife (the inimitable Liza Tarbuck) by ranting and raving about the deficiencies of sixteenth-century public transport: "Had to stand the whole way," spits the masterful observer of transcendent human complexities, with the righteous indignation [End Page 350]of the delayed commuter. "Two days with my face in the armpit of a man who appeared to be actually sweating urine." These kinds of jokes exemplify the special charm of Upstart Crow. The strengths of the show lie not merely in broad toilet humor or the comical juxtaposition of modern attitudes and early modern imagery, but in the way that these sitcom staples serve to humanize the world's greatest playwright. This is Shakespeare as we so rarely see him depicted in popular culture: Shakespeare the family man; Shakespeare the working man; Shakespeare, one of us. The first series of Upstart Crowwas produced in 2016 as part of the BBC's program of events and entertainments commemorating the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death. The plot revolves around Will's early struggles in the London showbiz scene, circa 1592–93. This tongue-in-cheek take on Shakespeare's life has been lauded as an enjoyable return to form for Elton, and his most successful television venture since Blackadder(Raeside, Rampton, Delingpole). High praise indeed, but not altogether surprising given the similarities between the two shows: following its precursor, Upstart Crowis well researched whilst also playing fast and loose with historical fact; it utilizes anachronisms for comic purpose; it rewards viewers with comedy that is at turns deeply intelligent and profoundly silly. Comical observations based on academic debates about Shakespeare's sexuality, education, and attitudes towards women are complemented by questionable gags and crude jokes which come thick and fast. "Bolingbrokes" and "futtocking" become rather satisfying profanities. Characters talk in asides, which "by strict convention cannot be heard." Harry Enfield plays John Shakespeare as part-Baldrick, part-Falstaff, offering filthy gags and working-class wisdom from atop the chamberpot. "Women ain't supposed to be sophisticated as us men," he pronounces sagely, while voiding his bowels. His wife Mary (Paula Wilcox) sits close by, wearing a perpetually resigned expression. Most importantly, though, Upstart Crowis, like Blackadder, an underdog story about a brilliant but flawed, and therefore relatable, protagonist. Despite being only a jobbing writer at this point in his career, Will is presented as an ambitious social climber: by impressing audiences with his drama and poetry, he hopes to earn a place among the nobility, secure a family coat of arms, and ultimately bring honor and legitimacy to the house of Shakespeare. His...

SENECAN POSTSCRIPT

Eliot was always right to a degree, banally so. Much of the visceral, emotional and intellectual force of Senecan tragedy, like that of the great Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatists whom Seneca inspired, is necessarily verbal. But, as Trinacty's closural analysis and the other studies of this volume attest, there are ‘further realities’—many and diverse: poetic, theatrical, political, rhetorical, psychological, moral, cultural—‘behind’ the language itself. This collection of critical essays is the latest manifestation of the resurgence of Senecan scholarly and intellectual energy which has taken place in the thirty plus years since the 1983 publication of the Ramus volume on Seneca Tragicus. That volume not only displayed with disdain the above quotation from Eliot, but paraded itself lamentably as ‘the first collection of critical essays devoted specifically to Senecan tragedy to be published in English’.

Sophocles and Democracy

Abstract Sophocles was both a great dramatist and a significant figure in Athenian public life. As a public figure, he was elected to important offices by the Athenian demos, but he also had a hand in the abolition of democracy in 411 bc – and then won first prize in the first tragic contest held after democracy was restored. As a dramatist, he frequently gives the impression that the common people are helpless without strong and wise leadership; but he can also suggest that a leader is worth nothing if he neglects his people or ignores their opinions, and in Antigone he seems to go out of his way to highlight the importance of the opinion of the ordinary man as well as that of the elite.

Living the Cold War: memoirs of a British diplomat

What do diplomats do? Do we still need them? Sir Christopher Mallaby's memoirs provide the answer and a good deal more. Born with a silver spoon—he went from Eton to the 9th Lancers and King's College, Cambridge—Mallaby's career centred on the gilded circuit of Moscow, Berlin, Bonn and Paris and key jobs in the Foreign Office during the Cold War. He witnessed Khrushchev banging his shoe on the desk at the United Nations General Assembly and was in Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis, kept awake by the possibility of death from a US nuclear missile strike. From his description of life in Moscow in the 1960s and 1970s, readers can almost smell the stale cabbage and cigarette smoke and feel the constant harassment of the KGB. The latter half of the twentieth century was dominated by the struggle between the victorious Allies to build the world in their own image. Central to this struggle was the confrontation with the Soviet Union over a divided Germany. Mallaby was both a player and an observer in this great drama of the Cold War which ended with German unification in 1990 and the collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1992.

Jacobins, Bolsheviks, and the Dream of Revolution: October 1917 in the Trajectory of a Brazilian Metalworker of African Descent

Jacobins, Bolsheviks, and the Dream of Revolution: October 1917 in the Trajectory of a Brazilian Metalworker of African Descent

Тезаурусность шекспировских исследований

&lt;p&gt;Тезаурусность исследований Шекспира, его современников, быта его эпохи позволяет сосредоточиться на той стороне шекспировского творчества, которая не характеризуется экспертным знанием небольшого числа ученых, посвятивших узким темам всю свою жизнь, а пойти вширь, опираясь на междисциплинарность как необходимое качество понимания Шекспира в качестве культурной константы разных времен и народов. Следуя этой задаче, авторы статьи анализируют основные направления шекспировских исследований.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Сегодня Шекспир не только гений англосаксонской литературы, но и один из столпов англо-американской образовательной системы как в школе, так и в вузах. Шекспировские штудии давно вышли за рамки англоязычной культуры. Обращаясь к Шекспиру, в крупнейших образовательных центрах мира изучают не только литературу позднего Ренессанса, эволюцию шекспировской поэтики в контексте мировой культуры, шекспировские реминисценции в национальных литературах, не только эволюцию драматургии, историю театра, музыки, кино, но и другие, казалось бы, далеко стоящие от мировой художественной культуры дисциплины.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Так, по шекспировским характерам изучают психологию человека. Особое распространение получило его «фрейдистское» прочтение образа Гамлета. Важными в научной и преподавательской деятельности стали исследования, ориентированные на философское прочтение творчества великого драматурга. Изучение творчества Шекспира в XXI в. тесно связано и с Интернетом и информационными технологиями.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Представленные проекты показывают возможности применения тезаурусного анализа в решении задач комплексного изучения человека — одного из краеугольных камней современного гуманитарного знания. В известном смысле тезаурусный подход может служить фоном для шекспировских штудий, которые обретают свою полноту и глубину именно в междисциплинарном контексте, когда от важного сегмента гуманитарных исследований, какие дает филология для понимания Шекспира и его творчества, делается шаг к раскрытию в шекспировской тематике культурных констант, объединяющих человечество и расширяющих его тезаурус. &lt;/p&gt;

Arthur Miller’s Moral Views Reflected in The Crucible

Arthur Miller is honored as” the American Consciousness” because he has strong social responsibility and hold that playwriting can be an effective way of presenting social problems and perusing countermeasures. His moral views are deeply presented in The Crucible. Through the study of plots and characters of the play, we can experience the deep concern of social problems and moral views of the great playwright from two perspectives: the views on man and self, and the views on man and the society.

SUPERNATURALISM AND MYSTICISM IN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S PLAY HAMLET

William Shakespeare is the greatest dramatist in the world. He has produced a lot of literary works especially play or drama. Some of his plays still exist until now such as Julius Caesar, Hamlet, The Merchant of Venice, etc. Even, one of his plays Romeo and Juliet has been translated into several languages in the world. He produces two types of plays, namely comedy which usually talks about love and tragedy which talks about sadness. In tragedy plays, Shakespeare always puts supernatural and mystical elements such as in Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Hamlet, etc. The supernatural and mysticism elements are usually marked by the appearance of apparition, witch, fairy, etc, and the elements can determine the fate of main characters. This article tries to describe how Shakespeare puts supernatural and mystical elements in one of his tragedy plays Hamlet.

Historicizing Shakesfear and Translating Shakespeare Anew

Historicizing Shakesfear and Translating Shakespeare Anew Lezlie C. Cross (bio) "Bless thee, Bottom! bless thee! thou art translated." A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM (ACT 3, SCENE 1) In 2011, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF), helmed by artistic director Bill Rauch, started an experimental project to "translate" Shakespeare's plays into contemporary English. The project was funded by tech entrepreneur Dave Hitz and led by Dr. Lue Morgan Douthit, then director of literary development and dramaturgy at OSF. The experiment started with a single text: Timon of Athens. Poet and translator Kenneth Cavander, known for his work translating Greek plays into English, was chosen to undertake a trial "translation" of this lesser-known play into twenty-first-century English.1 In approaching this translation, Cavander did not paraphrase and worked to maintain the poetic integrity of the original, without writing in iambic pentameter.2 It was important for Douthit and Cavander that the new version not fall into the realm of either revision or truncation. They wanted "no editing, no cutting, no fixing, no personal politics, no regionalisms," any of which might transform the translation into an adaptation.3 The experiment became reality when Cavander's version of Timon was produced at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival in April 2014, where it was, in Douthit's words, "incredibly well-received by critics and audiences."4 Indeed, Rick Harmon, the reviewer for the Montgomery Advertiser, called it "brilliant," "sleek, understandable and affecting" due to Cavander's "updating some of its language."5 Bolstered by the apparent success of this venture, Douthit, with the [End Page 211] financial support of Hitz, commissioned thirty-six playwrights (each partnered with a dramaturg) to create translations of all thirty-nine of Shakespeare's plays into modern English.6 To promote the idea that this project is simply a new way to play with, and thereby get to know, Shakespeare's works, the project was called Play on! Artistic Director Bill Rauch reassured skeptics that "The Play on! translations are not being commissioned because we despair that people will never understand the original language" but rather to create a new arena of engagement with Shakespeare's texts.7 This newness is twofold: (1) the nature of the project, which calls for translation rather than adaptation and (2) the demographics of the translation teams. More than half of the thirty-six playwrights are people of color and more than half are women.8 The aims of the Play on! project are to allow these important and emerging theatre practitioners a chance to intimately know Shakespeare's language and to have Shakespeare interpreted by a diverse body of artists. When the Play on! project was formally announced in September 2015, there was an instantaneous outpouring of both censure and support. On one side of the debate, the initiative was lambasted as a disturbing, misguided travesty. These detractors feared that translated Shakespeare would once again take the great playwright from the stage, as in the eighteenth-century adaptations of Shakespeare. On the other side of the debate, the project was praised as a solution to the dread that Shakespeare, a treasure of Anglophone culture, was quickly disappearing from American life due to the density of his language. As the articles appeared one after another, the fear on both sides of the debate was palpable. Ultimately, both proponents and opponents of the translations were afraid of losing Shakespeare. In this article, I examine three of the major Shakes-fears stimulating the Play on! controversy and place those anxieties in historical context to demonstrate how these concerns have fueled the Shakespeare industry since the Restoration.9 Fear One: Audiences As students are taught in introductory drama classes, an audience is essential to theatrical performance; per Eric Bentley's famous formula, "A impersonates B while C looks on."10 For theatremakers, the audience is not only the consumer of the theatrical product but also the fuel that keeps the theatre running. According to American Theatre's 2014 "Theatre Facts," ticket sales account for 53 percent of the earned income of theatres in the United States.11 This significant [End Page 212] figure means that artistic directors and producers need to estimate accurately the appeal...

Invisible Sovereign: Imagining Public Opinion from the Revolution to Reconstruction by Mark G. Schmeller

Reviewed by: Invisible Sovereign: Imagining Public Opinion from the Revolution to Reconstruction by Mark G. Schmeller John Brooke (bio) Invisible Sovereign: Imagining Public Opinion from the Revolution to Reconstruction. By Mark G. Schmeller. (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016. Pp. 249. Cloth, $49.95.) Mark Schmeller takes us deep into the shifting assumptions about what was going on in the public sphere in the early and antebellum republic. How would the collective will of the people be understood and manifested? What was the shape and nature of “public opinion”? Schmeller gives us a carefully crafted and long-overdue argument about how Americans imagined, and used, their sense of “what people think” as an actor in the public arena. At the early stages of his research, we are told, Schmeller saw the light: having planned a project that would start in 1870 and run to 1940, he realized that the great drama in this story ran from the Revolution to the Civil War. The result of this insight is six major chapters on the Age of Revolution, the Federalists and the Bank of the United States, the rise of party, the critique of reform, the culture of dueling, and the sectional crisis, wrapped in a stage-setting introduction and a coda on post–Civil War America. It might be summarized, crudely, as an arc from republican unity to liberal segmentation to technological integration. In Schmeller’s own terms, however, the key is a modernizing transition from “political-constitutional” to “social-psychological” imperatives (4). Throughout lies a tension between positive and negative connotations: is the public—are the people in whole and in part—sound in judgment, or flighty and deluded? Schmeller’s opening chapter on the “moral economy of opinion” takes us briefly back to the seventeenth century and ends with the ratification of the Constitution. This was an era in which the dominant trope was fear. The people at large did not have a collective opinion that amounted to much, with the exception of the threat of tyranny to liberties. The civility and sociability encouraged in the eighteenth century were intended to shape a public peace. But peace meant safety, and infringements on constitutions—implied and explicit—drove the “jealous” defense of rights. Thus jealous fear was the framework of public opinion from 1765 to the ratification debates of 1787–88. The Federalists and Hamilton’s bank partially ruptured this early modern constitutionalism. Credit was a matter of public assessment; the state and its financial institutions would rise and fall—the Federalists [End Page 123] thought—on the opinion of moneyed speculators. Jeffersonians saw continuing dangers. The debate over the Bank of the United States was, in Schmeller’s judgment, a watershed moment in the history of public opinion in the United States. It had a long reach into the nineteenth century, since the Jeffersonians and the Jacksonians would not abandon eighteenth-century constitutionalism; together they represented the collective opinion of the great body of the people against the illegitimate interests of the “money power.” Party would be about both “manufacturing public opinion” and claiming to represent the legitimate collective will. Thus both Democrats and Federalists/Whigs would be ambivalent about party; while they used press and organization to shape opinion and mobilize the voters, both assumed they represented the best way forward toward a dissent-free utopia. If party organized opinion for control of the levers of power, reform organized it for alternative visions. Whatever their aspirations for unanimity, parties divided the country in half; the Second Great Awakening and the rise of reform in all its varieties sprang from “a new attention on the making of private opinions and character” (90). Here partisan division turned into liberal segmentation, grounded in the concern that party majorities comprised Tocquevillean tyranny. The reform vision was grounded, Schmeller argues, in the real break to liberal individualism, setting off its own dissenters, such as William Ellery Channing, who saw tyrannies in the reform societies themselves. But this was obviously mostly a northern story, and in chapter 5 Schmeller turns to a southern-inflected one: the invocation of public opinion in dueling culture. Here opinion resolves down to honor—the public assessment of...