Customer Reviews

Shakespeare's Philosophy: Discovering the Meaning Behind the Plays

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Though occasionally insightful in its readings of specific passages, McGinn's book suffers from a questionable approach, the effort to discover the meaning behind Shakespeare's plays by dressing the author in borrowed clothes, the too tight doublet and hose of the smaller Montaigne or the completely inappropriate straightjackets of Hume or Wittgenstein. Thus, for McGinn, Shakespeare emerges as a sort of skeptical naturalist, a thesis difficult to maintain if one considers the plays in their entirety, neither neglecting nor distorting passages that undermine such a narrow view.
Consider as a signal example McGinn's reading of Hamlet's refusal to kill Claudius at prayers. McGinn comments that Hamlet is worried "Claudius will go to heaven if killed now, instead of to the hell he deserves. This has seemed to everyone like a rationalization rather than a genuine reason...." Not so fast! Such eminent commentators as Maynard Mack and C.S.Lewis have taken Hamlet at his word and seen this decision as the very climax of the play. Hamlet was charged with killing the king, not with damning his soul. In such arrogant God-playing, the Prince ironically misses the perfect opportunity, as we - though not he - learn, for Claudius tells us in his closing couplet that he has not, in fact, been able to pray. If McGinn had applied to this event his shrewd insights about the opacity that is man's lot instead of his contemporary secular bias, he would have come up with a reading more respectful to the details of the Shakespearean text.
A similar "updated" vision coupled with inattention to textual detail can be found in McGinn's treatment of Cordelia. When she says, "No cause," most commentators do not think, like McGinn, that she's giving voice to a Hume-like theory of randomness. Critics more at home with older culture recognize that she indeed has no cause, but only an excuse for a cause should she treat her repentant father with disdain. Equally problematic is McGinn's judgment of Cordelia in the play's opening scene. Even though he concedes her "manifest integrity," he finds her not "entirely blameless." She should have, like any consumer of current self-help books, walked on eggshells, avoided offending her proud father, and thus averted tragedy. Despite McGinn's concession, he is here to a certain extent blaming the victim, something the play refuses to do. A glance at Kent's remarks in this scene about the need to speak truth to power when "majesty falls to folly" or the play's closing admonition to "speak what we feel, not what we ought to say" strikes me as fatal to McGinn's view.

It's doubtful that anyone who has an enduring interest in Shakespeare and his plays would doubt that the Bard was of a philosophical bent. Certainly, one of the reasons Shakespeare has endured is that his characters speak deeply to the heart of what it means to be human. So, having the observations of an experienced philosopher on Shakespeare's work is quite appealing. Fortunately, Mr. McGinn doesn't disappoint.

In fact, the book is much like one would expect from a serious philosopher. He opens with a chapter on the themes he is going to pursue, outlining his ideas and defining his terms. He follows with chapters on six major plays (Midsummer, Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, Lear and The Tempest). Then, he offers four chapters on general topics such as gender and ethics. Finally, he wraps things up with an examination of Shakespeare's genius.

Overall, McGinn's analysis of the plays is quite insightful. The first few pages of his chapter on Hamlet made me think about the opening scene of the play (Bernardo & Francisco on the ramparts) in a new way. He has a powerful ability to take a single philosophical idea and dig deeply into a play. This can open up important new avenues of thought.

Still, feeling the weight of McGinn's intelligence in his writing, a reader does have to be careful in thinking that he has cut down to the heart of the plays. Though enlightening, in some ways, McGinn's views are narrow because he has a particular purpose that reflect his own interests. For example, McGinn sees Montaigne's influence on Shakespeare very clearly and there can be no doubt Shakespeare read Montaigne and this impacted his work; however, McGinn's highlighting of Montaigne cannot help but put other influences into shadow.

It is also true that to be completely convinced by the philosophical assertions McGinn has made it would be necessary to see how his work in useful in understanding the other thirty or so plays. He only talks about six in detail, remember, which leaves an awful lot of ground unplowed. It would be interesting to see McGinn's take on the rest of the canon.

To a reader with some background in Shakespeare, McGinn's work is a valuable addition to the scholarship surrounding the Bard. And, despite its philosophical topics, you don't have to be a professional to read, enjoy and understand this book. It is definitely worth reading.

I recommend this book, it contains many interesting insights. However, I think a more apt subtitle would have been: "Some Meaningful Discoveries" and a more apt title would have been "Philosophic Questions Raised in Some of Shakespeare's Better Known Plays". Within these boundaries, it's quite good. Of course, it doesn't add anything to Shakespeare, or not very much. And I'm not sure that comparisons to lesser lights like Hume, Wittgenstein, Freud and even Montaigne are very illuminating. When you recall your state at the end of a good production of King Lear or Hamlet, it's hard to think what needs to be added, except maybe explanations of archaic expressions, and that's pretty minor. With Shakespeare, all we ordinary mortals can do is to point out interesting things about the landscape and method, as Helen Vendler did in her wonderful book on the sonnets. Still, I think if you love Shakespeare, you'll like this book. It reminds you of those troubling questions and revelations your first experience of Shakespeare's plays evoked. The cultural world of our collective imagination is not going to be re-defined by Professor MeGinn's book. If this was all you had of Shakespeare, it wouldn't be much, but as an amplification of the experience you've already had, it's not bad.

Some of his most insightful observations had nothing to do with the study of philosophy, for example, the uniqueness and authenticity of each major character. This would make an excellent topic for a book: how real these men and women are. Very few characters in literature have a life of their own the way Hamlet, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Othello and many others do. They are like historical figures, as definable and at the same time as mysterious as Lincoln or Charles II or Napoleon or Josephine are. I thought this was a very good observation.

The writing is solid, and some of the analysis is sophisticated, particularly the chapter that attempts to answer the question of what makes a tragic hero so tragic.

Despite the title of the book, the strongest discussion takes place when McGinn puts philosophy aside - references to Montaigne and other philosophers seem forced, tenuous, and unconvincing.

Overall, this is a fun book to browse through, especially for folks who enjoy literary criticism.

an interesting and erudite exploration of some of the possible ideas and ideals driving the representations in shakespeares work. Well written beautifully explained and accessable for the fairly everyday reader. Well worth while reading and of course having in your collection for reference.

MFW

Though certainly not a comprehensive assessment of the meaning of Shakespeare's work by any means, there is definitely some value in the analysis that is presented here. I found the author's approach and writing style very approachable, which made this book a much more "breezy" read than I anticipated when I purchased it.

I would recommend this book for anyone who enjoys Shakespeare's work - it gives you a perspective on some plays and their pivotal scenes that you might not have considered before.

Seyton: The Queen, my lord, is dead.
Macbeth: She should have died hereafter,
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
--Macbeth (Act 5, scene 5, lines 17-28)

When, as a Junior in high school, I first read these lines, I was shaken awake by Macbeth's powerful soliloquy. Today, many years later, I am still stunned by the power and depth of Shakespeare's philosophical vision.

Celebrated as the great writer in the history of the English language, William Shakespeare produced a body of work with untold depths--so deep, in fact, that nearly 400 years after his death, we are still puzzling over it. A new book by Colin McGinn seeks to wrest still more insights from the celebrated Bard of Stratford-upon-Avon.

In "Shakespeare's Philosophy," McGinn contends that "an avowedly philosophical approach to Shakespeare can reveal new dimensions to his work and that his work can contribute to philosophy itself."

McGinn ("The Making of a Philosopher") has taught Philosophy at University College London and Oxford, and at Rutgers University, and recently became a Distinguished Professor at the University of Miami.

McGinn examines the main philosophical themes in Shakespeare's plays: knowledge and skepticism (epistemology); the self (psychology and ethics); and causality (metaphysics and ontology).

"There is not a sentimental bone in [Shakespeare's] body," writes McGinn. "He has the curiosity of a scientist, the judgment of a philosopher, and the soul of a poet. He gives one the sense that he is ruthlessly peeling back the layers of self-delusion and wishful thinking that cloud our view of human affairs, exposing the bloody beating heart (and intestines) of men. He is a beady-eyed naturalist of raging human interiority and social collision. And his naturalism counsels a proper skepticism about human pretensions to knowledge, distrust of the notion of the substantial self, and rejection of the teleological interpretation of causality."

McGinn shows the profound influence of the humanist Michel de
Montaigne (1533-1592) on Shakespeare, giving convincing evidence of this influence by citing the spiritual and literary affinities between the two writers. Montaigne's book of essays is one of the few books scholars can confirm Shakespeare had in his library, and Montaigne's essay "On Cannibals" was a direct source for "The Tempest."

McGinn cautions us not to assume (or presume) to know Shakespeare's personal beliefs by a cursory reading of his plays. After all, as a playwright, Shakespeare put expressions of conflicting worldviews in the mouths and minds of his fictional characters.

Nevertheless, one cannot seriously read Shakespeare without sensing his deep humanism and "realistic naturalism" (McGinn's phrase) and being persuaded that Shakespeare, like Nietzsche, had stared long into the abyss and found the abyss staring back at him.

In Shakespeare's Philosophy, McGinn examines in some detail six of the Bard's plays: "A Midsummer Night's Dream," "The Tempest," "Hamlet," "Othello," "Macbeth," and "King Lear." Especially in the last four mentioned plays, we see Shakespeare's pronounced tragic view of life, his artistry not only as poet and playwright but also as a philosopher of the first rank.

"Shakespeare's genius," writes McGinn, "should be seen in his submission to nature. He didn't impose his own vision on reality; he let reality impose itself on his vision. He told us how the world looks from the perspective of itself. And the world never looked the same again."

While reading books about Shakespeare is no substitute for reading the Bard himself, Colin McGinn gives us remarkable insights into his tragic vision, thereby alerting us for numerous things of which to be aware when we read Shakespeare's works.

(See also my review of Laurie Maquire's "Where There's a Will There's a Way: or, All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Shakespeare".)

The author tackles a worthy subject and does it very well. The tragic fact that comes across is that the world does not always conform itself to our contingent strenghs & weaknesses. Shakespeare does indeed tell us how the world works. And having read him, the world then, is not as before.
Desire for certain knowlege drives us and ignorance is a lot more prevalent than we know.
The mind's concealment is essential to its nature. Shakespear's tragic characters are always coping with their ignorance- the inability to know what they need to know.
These are some of the philsophies simply put that are arrived at through examintion of characters, plots, action, and Shakespeare's writing itself. And speaking of SELF- that is a crutial element of understanding Shakespeare's philosophy. He regards the self as interactive and theatrical- the mind subject to hidden & mysterious forces. The self can become divided and fragmented, losing its usual- but superficial- unity. The self is not always a harmonious whole, running on rational principles, but often a melange of conflicting forces, the source of which is unclear. We are as much victims of ourselves as we are of the world around us, with part of the psyche in rebellion against the rest.
Also Shakespeare's plays involve themselves with CAUSATION- unruly, unpredictable, unintelliigible, blind, weird and even paradoxical.
Sex also transforms.
Social life is the acting of parts.
Shakespeare's characters inhabit a harsh world, and tenderheartedness is unlikely to survive.
In the end Shakespeare can be compared in his philosophy like a dissappointed lover- one who had great hopes for humanity, but found his hopes crushed.
This is just a small taste of the author's very well done analysis: Shakespeare's Philosophy.
In the end, the world does not behave as one would wish. Still the desire never dies. And ignorance remains too well fed.

the first three quarters of the book are better than its ending, but mr. mcginn is a clean writer and makes what could be a pedantic subject easily accessible.