Nic Panagopoulos
Nic Panagopoulos is Assistant Professor in English Literature & Culture at the Department of English Language & Literature. He obtained his BA (1988) and Ph.D. (1994) at Royal Holloway, University of London, in English and Drama/Theatre Studies and English, respectively. He is the author of The Fiction of Joseph Conrad: The Influence of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (Peter Lang, 1998), Heart of Darkness and The Birth of Tragedy: A Comparative Study (Booksurge, 2007), and the editor with Maria Schoina of the volume, The Place of Lord Byron in World History: Studies in His Life, Writings, and Influence (Εdwin Mellen Press, 2013). His research interests focus mostly on the Εnglish novel, comparative literature, and the links between literature and philosophy. Besides his work on Joseph Conrad, he has published on a wide range of canonical writers, such as Shakespeare, Swift, Byron, Dickens, Huxley, and Beckett.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (9)
Uploads
Papers by Nic Panagopoulos
for the standards of a poet who provoked more controversy during his lifetime than perhaps any other writer in the English canon. Too “Satanic” for contemporary reviewers and clergy, without sporting the typical Byronic hero to counterbalance its perceived weaknesses of form or poetic decorum, the play was given a very uneven reception from friends and foes alike. The paper attempts to trace these responses and the reasons behind the (un-)popular reception of Cain. It is argued that Cain represented an experiment in style that didn’t come off and was misunderstood–ironically, even by Byron himself who was not sure exactly what he was doing with the drama, other than being provocative. Eventually, more than any other poem that Byron wrote, the text of Cain became fused not only with the author’s life, but with everything that was said or written about it, both before and after publication, resulting in a plural, public, and radically de-centred work that escapes critical consensus and theatrical orthodoxy to this day.
their common preoccupation with the problem of justice, the present
study shows Shakespeare borrowing Plato’s city-soul analogy as well as
the related body-politic paradigm to explore crucial convergences between
ethics and politics. Yet, while both authors employ dialectical methods to
clarify philosophical questions in their respective dialogues, Shakespeare
goes beyond mere verbal debate, juxtaposing the characters’
pronouncements on justice with their actions as well what happens to
them during the course of King Lear to transcend the seeming absurdity
of his darkest tragedy. It is thus argued that King Lear not only lends
support for Socrates’ critique of imitative poetry in Book III of the
Republic due to its ethical inconsistencies and emotional effect, but
inversely puts to the test such fundamental Platonic notions as the
philosopher-king and the privileging of philosophy over poetry in the
instruction of virtue.
for the standards of a poet who provoked more controversy during his lifetime than perhaps any other writer in the English canon. Too “Satanic” for contemporary reviewers and clergy, without sporting the typical Byronic hero to counterbalance its perceived weaknesses of form or poetic decorum, the play was given a very uneven reception from friends and foes alike. The paper attempts to trace these responses and the reasons behind the (un-)popular reception of Cain. It is argued that Cain represented an experiment in style that didn’t come off and was misunderstood–ironically, even by Byron himself who was not sure exactly what he was doing with the drama, other than being provocative. Eventually, more than any other poem that Byron wrote, the text of Cain became fused not only with the author’s life, but with everything that was said or written about it, both before and after publication, resulting in a plural, public, and radically de-centred work that escapes critical consensus and theatrical orthodoxy to this day.
their common preoccupation with the problem of justice, the present
study shows Shakespeare borrowing Plato’s city-soul analogy as well as
the related body-politic paradigm to explore crucial convergences between
ethics and politics. Yet, while both authors employ dialectical methods to
clarify philosophical questions in their respective dialogues, Shakespeare
goes beyond mere verbal debate, juxtaposing the characters’
pronouncements on justice with their actions as well what happens to
them during the course of King Lear to transcend the seeming absurdity
of his darkest tragedy. It is thus argued that King Lear not only lends
support for Socrates’ critique of imitative poetry in Book III of the
Republic due to its ethical inconsistencies and emotional effect, but
inversely puts to the test such fundamental Platonic notions as the
philosopher-king and the privileging of philosophy over poetry in the
instruction of virtue.