By Stanley Stewart
Touching at the paintings of philosophers together with Richardson, Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, and Dewey, this research examines the heritage of what philosophers have had to claim approximately "Shakespeare" as a subject matter of philosophy, from the seventeenth-century to the present. Stewart's quantity can be of curiosity to Shakespeareans, literary critics, and philosophers.
Read or Download Shakespeare and Philosophy (Routledge Studies in Shakespeare) PDF
Similar shakespeare books
The Meaning of Shakespeare, Volume 1 (Phoenix Books)
In tremendous and authoritative volumes, Harold C. Goddard takes readers on a travel in the course of the works of William Shakespeare, celebrating his incomparable performs and unsurpassed literary genius.
Shakespearean Genealogies of energy proposes a brand new view on Shakespeare’s involvement with the criminal sphere: as a visual house among the spheres of politics and legislation and good in a position to negotiate felony and political, even constitutional matters, Shakespeare’s theatre unfolded a brand new point of view on normativity.
Marketing the Bard: Shakespeare in Performance and Print, 1660-1740
To posterity, William Shakespeare could be the Bard of Avon, yet to mid-seventeenth-century theatergoers he was once simply one other dramatist. but slightly a century later, he used to be England’s most well liked playwright and a loved ones identify. during this interesting examine, Don-John Dugas explains how those alterations happened and sealed Shakespeare’s acceptance even ahead of David Garrick played his paintings at the London level.
Shakespeare's Modern Collaborators
Fresh paintings in Shakespeare reviews has dropped at the leading edge numerous ways that the collaborative nature of Shakespearean drama may be investigated: collaborative functionality (Shakespeare and his fellow actors); collaborative writing (Shakespeare and his co-authors); collaborative textual construction (Shakespeare and his transcribers and printers).
- SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION FACSIMILES NO. 6: PARADOXES OF DEFENCE - 1599.
- William Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage Volume 5 1765-1774 (The Collected Critical Heritage : William Shakespeare)
- Bargains with Fate: Psychological Crises and Conflicts in Shakespeare and His Plays
- William Shakespeare's Othello: A Routledge Study Guide and Sourcebook (Routledge Guides to Literature)
- Berryman's Shakespeare : [essays, letters, and other writings]
- Shakespearean Tragedy
Extra resources for Shakespeare and Philosophy (Routledge Studies in Shakespeare)
Example text
Hermione does tweak Polixenes with questions about what he and Leontes did to and with each other in those early, “innocent” years. This easy movement from textual analysis to personal reminiscence is not only typical of Nuttall’s relaxed style, but it is also integral to his thesis, which entails an individual corollary. Nuttall’s Shakespeare is always, like the critic, an individual, never simply a cultural product. Moreover—and this is important to the argument of whether Shakespeare is a philosopher—Shakespeare is almost always thinking.
We can learn from this fact, because it enables us to inquire into the dynamics of a world less interested than we are—indeed, one that appears to be not interested at all—in Shakespeare. It would be fruitless to investigate the phenomenon of silence on this subject in philosophers of our own time, for they are often inclined to heady statements about Shakespeare. For instance, as we saw in Chapter 1, Straussian Allan Bloom claims that “Shakespeare was the fi rst philosopher of history” (Bloom 2000, 29), and Emmanuel Levinas, whom we will discuss at greater length in Chapter 9, thinks “the whole of philosophy is only a meditation of Shakespeare” (Levinas 1987, 79).
Hamlet is torn between idealism and empiricism, as were Locke and Hume. ) In his remarks on Hamlet, Nuttall slips back into the personal mode, declaring the relevance of Freudian theory (199). Freud’s explanation makes much in the play “intelligible” to him (200), this despite the fact that, as Nuttall admits, Hamlet makes a fool anyone foolish enough to offer “a single positive interpretation” of the text, including Coleridge, who thought that Hamlet’s problem was simply that he thought too much (201).