The comic grotesque is a powerful element in a great deal of Elizabethan literature, but one which has attracted scant critical attention. In this study, first published in 1980, Neil Rhodes examines the nature of the grotesque in late sixteenth-century culture, and shows the part it played in the development of new styles of comic prose and drama in Elizabethan England. In defining ‘grotesque’, the author considers the stylistic techniques of Rabelais and Aretino, as well as the graphic arts. He discusses the use of the grotesque in Elizabethan pamphlet literature and the early satirical journalists such as Nashe, and argues that their work in turn stimulated the growth of satirical drama at the end of the century. The second part of the book explains the importance of Nashe’s achievement for Shakespeare and Jonson, concluding that the linguistic resources of English Renaissance comedy are peculiarly – and perhaps uniquely – physical.

In the first book-length study explicitly to connect the postcolonial trope of hybridity to Renaissance literature, Gary Schmidt examines how sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English authors, artists, explorers and statesmen exercised a concerted effort to frame questions of cultural and artistic heterogeneity. This book is unique in its exploration of how 'hybrid' literary genres emerge at particular historical moments as vehicles for negotiating other kinds of hybridity, including but not limited to cultural and political hybridity. In particular, Schmidt addresses three distinct manifestations of 'hybridity' in English literature and iconography during this period. The first category comprises literal hybrid creatures such as satyrs, centaurs, giants, and changelings; the second is cultural hybrids reflecting the mixed status of the nation; and the third is generic hybrids such as the Shakespearean 'problem play,' the volatile verse satires of Nashe, Hall and Marston, and the tragicomedies of Beaumont and Fletcher. In Renaissance Hybrids, Schmidt demonstrates 'postmodern' considerations not to be unique to our own critical milieu. Rather, they can fruitfully elucidate cultural and literary developments in the English Renaissance, forging a valuable link in the history of ideas and practices, and revealing a new dimension in the relation of early modern studies to the concerns of the present.

The year 2008 marks the four hundredth anniversary of the first publication of King Lear, and for four centuries the play has remained a consummate bibliographical mystery. Winner of the 2007 Jay L. Halio prize for best manuscript in Shakespeare studies, Shakespeare in Shorthand demonstrates that many textual anomalies derive from the play's transcription in Elizabethan shorthand. The shorthand system of John Willis, Stenographie (1602), shows a high correlation with the unusual textual features found in the first quarto of Lear (1608). The patterns of variants in the quarto conform to Willis' rules regarding the reduction of diphthongs and digraphs and the omission of aspirated, doubled, or unsounded letters. In the past two decades the textual interrelation of quarto and folio (1623) Lear has proven one of the most contested issues in Shakespearean studies, and an examination of Stenographie reveals that some of these textual differences result not from authorial revision, but from transmission in abbreviated writing. Bibliographical evidence also indicates that some textual omissions from the folio version are neither authorial nor theatrical, but derive from the printing house.