Shakespeare's Philosophy: Discovering the Meaning Behind the Plays

Shakespeare's Philosophy: Discovering the Meaning Behind the Plays

5.0 1
by Colin McGinn

View All Available Formats & Editions

Shakespeare's plays are usually studied by literary scholars and historians and the books about him from those perspectives are legion. It is most unusual for a trained philosopher to give us his insight, as Colin McGinn does here, into six of Shakespeare's greatest plays––A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, King Lear, and The Tempest.


Shakespeare's plays are usually studied by literary scholars and historians and the books about him from those perspectives are legion. It is most unusual for a trained philosopher to give us his insight, as Colin McGinn does here, into six of Shakespeare's greatest plays––A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, King Lear, and The Tempest.

In his brilliant commentary, McGinn explores Shakespeare's philosophy of life and illustrates how he was influenced, for example, by the essays of Montaigne that were translated into English while Shakespeare was writing. In addition to chapters on the great plays, there are also essays on Shakespeare and gender and his plays from the aspects of psychology, ethics, and tragedy.

As McGinn says about Shakespeare, "There is not a sentimental bone in his body. He has the curiosity of a scientist, the judgement of a philosopher, and the soul of a poet." McGinn relates the ideas in the plays to the later philosophers such as David Hume and the modern commentaries of critics such as Harold Bloom. The book is an exhilarating reading experience, especially at a time when a new audience has opened up for the greatest writer in English.

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly
Shakespeare's famous phrase "All the world's a stage/ And all the men and women merely players" reflects a common sense of the self shared by many philosophers. So begins McGinn's project of tracing Shakespeare's philosophy through six of his great plays, while arguing that the great English bard can be fairly regarded as a philosopher. Without seeming at all dusty, the book examines Shakespeare in relation to Hume, Wittgenstein and such major philosophical questions as nothingness, language, causation and the nature of knowledge. McGinn makes a credible case that the essays of Montaigne as well as skepticism and naturalism had a clear influence on Shakespeare's writings, bringing unexpected freshness to topics that are well-worn in high school curriculums. Most interesting is McGinn's earnest delight in rediscovering Shakespeare's characters, such as the tragic Cordelia and the indecisive Hamlet. McGinn's gift, aside from his clear and beautiful prose, is in recognizing Shakespeare's genius in creating true and recognizable people, who ring as true to modern audiences as they did to his contemporaries. "He told us how the world looks from the perspective of itself. And the world never looked the same again." This conclusion implies that just as Shakespeare the playwright still moves his audiences, so, too, can Shakespeare the philosopher. (Dec.) Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information.
Library Journal
McGinn (philosophy, Rutgers Univ.; The Making of a Philosopher) uses Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, King Lear, and The Tempest as the basis for his study, critically evaluating them from a philosopher's perspective. He postulates that Shakespeare used philosophic themes to construct the framework of his plays. These themes include skepticism, questions regarding the possibility of human knowledge, the nature of self and personal identity, the understanding of causation, the existence and nature of evil, and the formative power of language. Where necessary, he provides the background needed to understand his discussion; for example, he begins his discussion of the Aristotelian "tragic flaw" by defining and illustrating the concept. Though Shakespeare left no record of his personal philosophy, many books are available on the topic. McGinn's strength is his ability to present complicated philosophical ideas in simple, easily understandable terms. While he contributes no novel insights regarding these plays, he does provide an accessible approach to a deeper understanding of them. Recommended for all public and academic libraries.-Shana C. Fair, Ohio Univ. Lib., Zanesville Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
The Bard was a naturalistic philosopher-and a psychologist, a gender-bender, an ethicist and moralist and, of course, a genius. McGinn (Philosophy/Rutgers Univ.) has previously turned his philosopher's eye on the arts (The Power of Movies: How Screen and Mind Interact, 2005), and here he takes on the plays of the Sweet Swan of Avon, though admitting he is no literary scholar, no authority on Shakespeare. Still, he has given a number of the plays a close and serious and convincing reading, and he brings to Shakespeare studies a philosophical perspective often either absent or amateurishly handled. McGinn takes up a number of philosophical issues and shows how they appear in key texts-knowledge and skepticism, the nature of the self, causality. He looks closely at A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, King Lear and The Tempest. He alludes elsewhere to a few other plays. Following these close readings, he examines some broader concerns-gender, psychology, ethics-and ends with a brief consideration of Shakespearean tragedy (he thinks Aristotle's definition of tragedy was wrong) and a quick consideration of the nature of Shakespeare's genius. McGinn assumes that readers know little about the plays under discussion (the lists of characters and plot summaries seem somehow superfluous for anyone interested in such a title as this), and there are a few surprising omissions-in the gender chapter, for example, he does not mention The Taming of the Shrew. The author, justifiably, makes much of the Bard's reading of Montaigne and of his almost preternatural understanding of human nature. A slender but substantial offering, with some gaps, for those interested in the ideas ofShakespeare. Agent: Susan Rabiner/Susan Rabiner Literary Agent

Product Details

HarperCollins Publishers
Publication date:
Sold by:
Sales rank:
File size:
606 KB

Read an Excerpt

Shakespeare's Philosophy

Discovering the Meaning Behind the Plays
By Colin McGinn

HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Copyright © 2006 Colin McGinn
All right reserved.

ISBN: 0060856157

Chapter One

General Themes

In Characters of Shakespeare's Plays, published in 1817, William Hazlitt remarks (discussing Iago in Othello) that Shakespeare "was as good a philosopher as he was a poet."1 In his discussion of Coriolanus, he observes that Shakespeare writes with "the spirit of a poet and the acuteness of a philosopher."2 And the philosophical tenor of Shakespeare's plays has not gone unnoticed by other readers and audiences. We feel that large themes are at work in the plays, shaping the Poetry and the drama. But little attempt has been made to identify and articulate these philosophical themes in any systematic way.3 Critical studies tend to focus on issues of character, plot, and diction, as well as the social and political context of the plays, but the philosophical ideas suffusing them receive only passing mention. This is no doubt because those professionally involved in Shakespeare studies are not in general philosophers by training or inclination; they are literary scholars. Philosophy, perhaps, makes them nervous. It will be my contention in this book that an avowedly philosophical approach to Shakespeare can reveal new dimensions to his work, and that his work can contribute to philosophy itself. It is not myintention to replace poetic or dramatic treatments of Shakespeare, or even historical ones; I mean merely to supplement them with something more abstract. I want to look at Shakespeare's plays expressly from the point of view of their underlying philosophical concerns. This will, I believe, reveal the source of their depth.

The plan of the book is as follows. In this chapter I shall outline in a preliminary way what I take to be the main philosophical themes in Shakespeare's plays, with minimal attention to the text. I want to give the reader a sense of the issues themselves, before using them to interpret the plays. These issues are by no means antiquated, but have a continuing relevance. Then I shall move on to a close reading of Shakespeare's main plays, with these themes in hand, elaborating them as I go. At the end of the book I shall treat a small number of philosophical matters that are ancillary to my main themes. We shall see that Hazlitt was quite correct in his assessment of Shakespeare's talents.

Shakespeare is often commended for his "timelessness," rightly so, but of course he also wrote at a particular period in history--the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth. For my purposes, the most relevant fact about this period is that it precedes the Scientific Revolution, so that science was in its infancy in Shakespeare's day. Very little that we now take for granted was understood--in astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology. The achievements of Descartes, Leibniz, Galileo, Newton, Locke, Boyle, and other heroes of the Renaissance were still in the future. The laws of mechanics were unknown; disease was a mystery; genetics was unheard of. Intelligent people believed in witchcraft, ghosts, fairies, astrology, and all the rest. Eclipses were greeted with alarmed superstition. Scientific method was struggling to gain a foothold (Francis Bacon was laying the groundwork). The conception of the world as a set of intelligible law-governed causes was at most a distant dream. The most advanced learning available came from the ancients; intellectually things hadn't changed much in two thousand years. When Shakespeare looked up into the night sky, he had very little idea of what he was seeing, and the earth was still generally considered the center of the universe. Nor was much known about the extent of the earth and of other cultures (though global exploration had already begun). It can be hard to remember this when we are confronted by Shakespeare's sophistication in other matters. Nothing much was known about the natural world then, and this was known to be so; uncertainty and ignorance seemed man's natural lot. To give one striking example: so little was understood about the plague that devastated Europe in the late sixteenth century that orders were given in London to exterminate all cats and dogs--which were in fact the best enemies of the true carriers of the germs responsible, rats.

It was also a period of religious upheaval in which the source of divine authority was very much in doubt. The Protestant Reformation had challenged Catholicism, and the question of how we might know God was intensely real (you could die for taking the wrong view). Should believers rely on their own unaided reason to know God's ways, or must they depend ultimately on church dogma? How to interpret Scripture was a vexed question, with a great deal turning on it. Thus there was a strong interest in knowledge and how it might be acquired, but not very much that seemed to qualify as beyond doubt. It was an age of uncertainty, following a period (the Middle Ages) of dogmatism, and preceding the age in which human reason seemed to achieve undreamed-of understanding of the universe (the Age of Enlightenment in which we still live). It is fair, I think, to characterize Shakespeare's time as transitional--as one kind of authority (the church, monarchy) began to give way to another (science and human reason, a new social order). We might say, simplifying somewhat, that Shakespeare was "between cultures." Questioning is the spirit of this period, and a sense of shifting foundations. It would not be surprising, then, to find doubt and uncertainty running through Shakespeare's plays. And these aporias would run deep: the nature of man, his place in the cosmos, the very possibility of knowledge.

There are three areas in which I think this spirit of uncertainty pervades the plays: knowledge and skepticism; the nature of the self; and the character of causality. I shall consider these in turn.

Knowledge and Skepticism

Aristotle begins his Metaphysics with the terse sentence: "All men naturally desire knowledge." That sounds like a truism, but if it is, it is a truism with profound consequences. There are three parts to it: that it is in . . .


Excerpted from Shakespeare's Philosophy by Colin McGinn Copyright © 2006 by Colin McGinn. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Meet the Author

Colin McGinn was educated at Oxford University. The author of sixteen previous books, including The Making of a Philosopher, he has written for the London Review of Books, The New Republic, the New York Times Book Review, and other publications. He has taught philosophy at University College of London, Oxford, and Rutgers University, and is a distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Miami.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

Shakespeare's Philosophy: Discovering the Meaning Behind the Plays 5 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 1 reviews.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
One of the best books you'll ever read about the philosopical implications of Shakespeare's major tragedies. Brilliantly organized and accessible to all levels of intellect.