The paper examines the origins of the distinction between physis, “nature,” and nomos, “norm,” and the uses made of it during the period of the Sophists. The two terms did not originally lend themselves to being contrasted, but the contrast becomes natural in light of two mid-fifth-century developments: a growing interest in the different customs of different societies and a proliferation of accounts of the origins of human civilization. While the contrast is employed by others, such as Herodotus and the medical writers, it is the Sophists themselves, above all, who exploit it for sociological and philosophical purposes. Some, such as Protagoras, see nomos as building on physis – that is, on tendencies in human nature; others see an opposition between the two, and suggest that we would be better off ignoring nomos and attending to what our natures dictate. The contrast is also applied to religion, which some Sophists treat as nomos.

This chapter focuses on issues of objection and dissent. As well as examining the ways in which the theatre challenged or questioned the war - through works such as Drinkwater’s X=0 (1917) and Malleson’s banned Black ‘Ell (1917) - it considers the theatre’s representation of objectors to the war - through pieces such as Jones’ The Pacifists (1917) and Collins’ revue sketch The Consciensciousless Objector (1916). It contextualises the production of these works in relation to changes in wider attitudes towards the war, as well as considering how playwrights with pacifist leanings were constrained both by the censor and by cultural nationalism. It discusses the contribution of George Bernard Shaw to debates over the war and, as the final chapter in this part of the book, it also links to part III and the discussion of changing attitudes towards the war in the 1920s and 1930s.

We have been reading Gulliver’s Travels for nearly 300 years, and we have been arguing about it just as long. The history of the critical reception of Swift’s masterpiece begins as soon as the book was published, when Swift was charged with indecency and misanthropy, though he has always had defenders as well as detractors, a situation that continued into the nineteenth century. In the Victorian period, Gulliver was often sanitised through abridgement, especially in versions for children. In the twentieth century, Gulliver’s Travels has been the subject of numerous lines of academic enquiry, including criticism that focuses on its sources and generic identity; on its employment of rhetoric and irony in service of satire; on feminism and sexuality; on colonialism and politics; and on the histories of science, philosophy, and religion.

For nearly 300 years, authors of all kinds have expanded the world of Lemuel Gulliver through multiple fifth voyages, spinoffs, mock treatises, verse exchanges, and much more. Close to 200 imitative or supplementary works were produced and reproduced between late 1726 and 1730 alone, and well over 100 in each of the following two decades, the 1730s and 1740s. Most Gulliveriana signals a formal connection with Travels, whether it revisits old settings, fills in perceived gaps in the narrative, or provides additional material. First establishing some common terms and issues in the study of print-based Gulliveriana, this chapter explores the different ways in which secondary writers have filled in and filled out the author-explorer’s world in his name. The final section explores proleptic continuations attributed to Gulliver’s offspring, time-forwarded Gullivers, and other, non-Gulliverian authors.

In August 1914, foreign plays, ensembles, artists and writers suddenly stood on opposite sides: those from allied countries and those from enemy states. The Pioneer Players were significant in presenting translated plays, especially from Russian and French to British audiences outside of the limitation of the Licensing Act, and for their exploration of continental aesthetic influences. This chapter picks key areas of dialogue with European theatrical culture and looks beyond the work of the Pioneer Players to the ways in which European influences were seen despite all obstacles on the British wartime stage. From the Grand Guignol season staged in French at the Coronet and the Garrick in 1915 to the production of three of Mozart’s operas by Sir Thomas Beecham in the years 1916/17 to French variety stars such as Gaby Deslys who haunted the British revues even where she wasn’t present herself. In relation to pre-war theatrical life in Britain, continental theatre was partially ‘muted’ for different reasons during the war but persisted in form of aesthetic influences and an awareness that British political and social issues had increasingly become international and had a large influence on the theatrical culture of the 1920’s.

In the late fifth century BCE, traditional religious beliefs and practices were being reconsidered from a variety of intellectual fields and viewpoints, but perhaps most vigorously interrogated by the Sophists. Although ancient Greek religion was characteristically open to change and local variety, the Sophists and contemporaneous thinkers put this flexibility to the test, as ancient reports of trials against intellectuals on account of their religious views attest. Anaxagoras and Socrates, in different ways, offer novel perspectives on what the divine is and is not; Protagoras in one way and the Derveni author in another question traditional certainties about our access to and knowledge of the divine; Prodicus, Democritus, and the so-called Sisyphus fragment provide psychological and/or sociological explanations of religious beliefs; and characters in plays by Euripides and Aristophanes deny outright the existence of the gods and, with that, the existence of traditional moral values.

Part III of Gulliver’s Travels stands out from the other voyages: instead of landing Gulliver in a single country, it consists of four, distinct journeys to extraordinary lands. Each of these is peopled by quasi-magical beings and each voyage dramatizes the abuses of the 'modern' learning and political and scientific culture of Swift’s time. In Laputa, the Floating Island, Gulliver encounters fanatical mathematicians whose bodies are as twisted as their mistaken calculations. In Balnibarbi, the literally overshadowed country beneath, barren crops and cockeyed buildings testify to the misapplied science of its Academy of Projectors. In Glubbdubdriub, the Island of Sorcerers, Gulliver meets the ghosts of the heroes and great thinkers of the ancient world who battled tyranny; he also encounters the ghosts both of corrupt modern commentators who distort classic texts and of the syphilitic ancestors of modern aristocrats. The final voyage to Luggnagg features a race of immortals who illustrate the vanity of human wishes as they grow increasingly quarrelsome, discontented and senile forever. As a whole, Part III constitutes a savage satire on the entire Whiggish project of Swift’s contemporary Britain.

This chapter provides a partner to Vivien Gardners examination of theatre-going in Chapter 4. It examines the social and economic context of wartime theatre production, considering the ways in which the conflict impacted on theatre and shaped what could and could not be performed. It covers the practicalities of theatre-making during the war considering the enlistment of actors, touring patterns, the repertory system, censorship, military tribunals, and air raids. It positions the war as a period of change, whether in terms of the growth of cinema, the increasing role of women, changing sexual mores, or changing audiences. It shows how managers responded to this change in order to keep their businesses afloat, for example with the introduction of twice-nightly performances. The chapter also emphasises the importance of understanding the value of ‘feel-good’ entertainment, and shows how the interweaving of ‘new drama’ and multi-mode, popular entertainment on the touring circuits was designed to satisfy audience demand. In highlighting the ways in which the constraints of war determined both the format and content of theatrical production this chapter provides an important framework through which to read subsequent chapters.

This chapter analyses the material that precedes the chapter summaries and the main narrative of Gulliver’s Travels. It establishes that the purpose of the prefatory material, both verbal and visual, is to make the reader uncertain whether or not they are reading a true story. The purpose of that is to tease and vex the reader, with the broader satirical intention of calling into question the very concept of truth. Swift is pointing out that human beings are systematically perverting language so as to express intentionally untrue statements, chronic mendacity, and its destabilisation of the linguistic system being a manifestation of human corruption. The chapter examines political lying in the early eighteenth century, then literary lying in prose fiction, situating Gulliver as a critique of reader-credulity and ‘absorptive’ reading encouraged by novels. The chapter explains the aims of the text and its preliminaries in their 1726 and 1735 states.

Sophists were active participants in ancient discussions about being or what-is at the most general level. This chapter discusses the contributions of Gorgias, Protagoras, Xeniades, and Lycophron in the context of the Eleatic philosophers Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. All of these figures share a serious commitment to ontological inquiry as well as a concern with the problems that arise when discussing being or what-is. They also share an approach to these problems that is at times paradoxical and self-undermining. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of Parmenides’ poem, a work that serves as an important backdrop for later ontology. It then covers Gorgias’ On Not-Being, a response to the Eleatics and a unique contribution in its own right. Gorgias’ work is then compared with that of Zeno and Melissus. Finally, the more limited evidence we have of Protagoras, Xeniades, and Lycophron’s ontological theorizing is discussed.

This chapter locates the Sophists within the context of earlier Greek wisdom traditions and efforts by a variety of individuals (from Hesiod to Parmenides and Pindar) to establish and communicate their own poetic and/or intellectual authority. The Sophists participated in long-standing debates over the relationship between sophia and technê, and over tensions surrounding physical versus intellectual skills, learning, and teaching. They also looked back to the practice of wisdom and maxim collection. There was no dominant tradition under which one could unify the manifestations of sophia in Archaic and early Classical Greece; this complexity was an important aspect of the sophistic inheritance, and is the background against which we must measure individual efforts to claim distinctive achievement. The analysis traces the importance of Hesiodic and quasi-Hesiodic wisdom collections, the emergence of the inquiry into nature and of intellectual and cultural experts known as “sages” (sophoi), and the representation of sophia in sympotic and epinician poetry.

This chapter considers changing representations of the First World War on stage after the Second World War and through to the centenary. It examines the significance of Oh What a Lovely War (1963) as a product of the Cold War and fears over a third world, and nuclear, war. Emphasising the importance of understanding theatrical representations of the war in relation to their socio-political contexts, the chapter shows how the changing political context of the 1990s and anxieties over the loss of memory led to shifts in how the war was represented on stage, with Lovely War increasingly being used to ‘teach’ the war. The chapter argues that twenty-first century plays including Morpurgo’s War Horse and Private Peaceful, and Faulks’s Birdsong, are driven by an imperative to remember the war and fill a gap left by the loss of direct memory and experience of the war. It shows how this leads to the privileging of the personal, individual, micro experience of the war over the macro history of the war. It addresses the tension between history and memory in these plays as well as demonstrating their role in shaping commemoration during the centenary.

The portrayal of male and female bodies in Gulliver’s Travels has long been the subject of critical debate, from early suggestions that Swift was motivated by personal animus against Maids of Honour to more recent studies characterising him as an inveterate misogynist or an effeminised admirer of women. This chapter suggests that the depictions of female bodies must be read alongside Gulliver’s preoccupation with his own body and its functions, and these representations should be understood in the context of a culture in which sexuality provided a recognised shorthand for political debate. The aristocratic rakish discourse of Restoration theatre, with its presentation of relations between men and women through metaphors of battle and struggle, was being challenged by the emergence of sentimental dramas celebrating marital harmony. Gulliver’s horror at female bodies and his idealisation of the social systems of Lilliput and Houyhnhnmland challenge the fetishisation of the family and reverence for domesticity that were increasingly characterising moral discourse and found their ideal form for expression in the development of the novel.