Shakespeare's Philosophy

Tweet

I have recently been reading Colin McGinn's book Shakespeare's Philosophy. The opening chapter provides a really good overview of some of the philosophical questions that appear to have interested Shakespeare.

As background to my series on Shakespeare's comedies, I thought I would provide a summary of McGinn's opening chapter. This material should be of interest to all, irrespective of their feelings about Shakespeare.

McGinn argues that there are three philosophical themes permeating Shakespeare's plays: (a) Knowledge and Scepticism; (b) the Self; and (c) Causality. Let's look at each of them in turn.


(a) Knowledge and Scepticism
The quest for knowledge is central to human existence. Aristotle argued that it was a natural desire we all share. That may be an over-generalisation, but it seems to ring true.

Knowledge is a normative concept. In this sense, it is useful to distinguish it from information, which is not normative. Information can be true or false, good or bad, useful or useless. Knowledge is true, good and useful. Information is ubiquitous; knowledge is rare.

So there is a problem: we have imperfect access to what is true, good and useful. Our senses often mislead us, as do other people. This has been a perennial philosophical concern, present in the sayings of Socrates and the writings of Plato. Socrates, in particular, was sceptical about those who claimed to be in the know.

The problem has seemed so acute to some that they have dismissed the quest for knowledge. The school of thought known as Pyrrhonism, for example, argues that it is irrational to believe in anything, given our knowledge-accessing problems.

Shakespeare was exposed to the writings of one arch-sceptic Michel Montaigne. Montaigne wrote brilliant essays that fused personal anecdote with serious intellectual concerns (he should be an inspiration to all bloggers!). In a famous essay "An Apology for Raymond Sebond", Montaigne expertly articulated the sceptical position. McGinn argues that Montaigne had a profound influence on Shakespeare.

In addition to this, Shakespeare is himself an expert articulator of the problem of other minds. This concerns our difficulties in knowing what others are thinking, plotting, hoping and intending. The plays are replete with characters who misunderstand each other. Indeed, the comedies are usually premised on misunderstanding of some sort.


(b) The Self
Drama is all about selves. A play is usually an assemblage of characters or selves engaging in activities and events. These activities and events constitute the "plot". The question that arises is whether the self remains constant throughout the plot or whether it is changed by the plot.

McGinn argues that Shakespeare is sceptical of the notion that the self is a constant, definite, singular "thing" or "essence". Instead, McGinn suggests that for Shakespeare the self is interactive and theatrical.

It is interactive in that it never makes sense to talk about the self in isolation. The self only becomes apparent in social interactions. For example, if we describe someone as being generous, what we mean is that they behave in certain ways towards other people.

It is theatrical in that it is best understood in terms of the roles a person plays in life. This idea is manifest in the famous Seven Ages of Man speech in As You Like It. We treat life like a stage play in which we play different roles, each designed to make an impression on an audience of some kind. We are familiar with this: we all put on a different "act" depending on the people we are with.


(c) Causality
The final philosophical concern of Shakespeare is with causality. Causality gives structure to the events and processes through which we live. The philosophical concern is with the search for some overarching causal principle that explains the structure and sequence of all events.

We can distinguish between two types of overarching causal principle. The first would be a teleological principle. This would explain events in terms of the whims, desires, preferences or intentions of some agent, usually God. This principle imbues events with great moral and ethical significance. For example, if a battle is won, it is because God favours us; if a person is injured, it is because God is angry.

The second type of principle would be naturalistic and amoral. It explains events in terms of mindless processes and mechanisms (see here for more details). What morality and purpose there is in the universe is projected onto it by us, it is not out there. This is an atheistic view, one that I personally share.

McGinn argues that Shakespeare is sceptical about teleological causation. In his comedies and tragedies he seems to reject the idea that there is rational purpose or order in the universe. The universe is unruly, morally blind and even sometimes unintelligible. McGinn thinks that this scepticism is what gives Shakespeare's plays their great worth: they challenge complacent views about causality.

As You Like It (Part 2): The Pastoral Dream

Tweet

This post is part of my series on Shakespeare's comedies. The goal is to explore the philosophic themes in the plays. The series is very much my own take on things. I do, however, consult with a limited amount of Shakespearean scholarship when preparing these (a lot of which is, to be frank, dross).

I am currently looking at As You Like It. Above all else, the play is Shakespeare's take on the pastoral. This is a common literary motif, famously present in the Eclogues of Virgil. This post covers three aspects of the pastoral. First, it looks at the general ideal of the pastoral life. Second, it considers Shakespeare's presentation of the pastoral life. And third, it deals with the overarching question: is the pastoral life desirable?

1. What is the Pastoral Dream?

Pastoralism is the lifestyle of animal husbandry. Pastoralists tend to flocks and herds, and move them about a landscape in accordance with seasonal needs. The quintessential example of a pastoralist is the shepherd. And indeed, most pastoral poetry and literature uses shepherds and shepherdesses as the main characters.

In pastoral literature, the lifestyle of animal husbandry is romanticised. It is presented as the ideal, simple, and uncomplicated existence. Pastoralists live in harmony with the natural world: they do not exploit it and they do not suffer because of it. The most famous presentation of this ideal state of existence is, of course, the Garden of Eden in Genesis. As I read it, pastoralism is not quite the equivalent of Eden, but rather is a more attainable approximation of it. The pastoral metaphor or idyll always smoulders beneath the surface of Christianity (the Lord is a shepherd; a congregation is a flock).

The pastoral existence is usually imagined as being wholly undemanding. There is little attention paid to the actual hard graft that might go into animal husbandry. Instead, there is thought to be ample leisure time available in which to explore romantic love. It is this exploration of romantic love in a rural setting that is most distinctive of pastoral literature.

2. Shakespeare's Presentation of Pastoralism

The Forest of Arden in As You Like It provides the pastoral backdrop against which four different visions of romantic love are explored (more on this in future posts). Shakespeare took his story from Thomas Lodge's Rosalynde. Lodge's story is about as straightforward a presentation of the pastoral dream as one can get.

Shakespeare was slightly more nuanced in his version. He displays a willingness to challenge and question the realities of pastoralism. That said: the play definitely closes with the sunny-side facing in the upward direction.

The nuances of Shakespeare's presentation are most clearly visible in Act II, Scene I. It is our first glimpse of the forest and it begins with Duke Senior giving a short speech on the virtues of pastoralism. As background, it should be noted that the Duke was forced to flee to the forest after being usurped by his younger brother. His speech suggests he is better off for it:

Sweet are the uses of adversity,

Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,                                      

Wears yet a precious jewel in his head;

And this our life, exempt from public haunt,                                                                            

Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,

Sermons in stones, and good in everything.

Shakespeare's reluctance to embrace the pastoral dream is present even in this speech, which is perhaps the most glowing endorsement of pastoralism to be found in the play. The speech suggests that there are hardships in pastoralism, but that they are outweighed by the simple pleasures.

The reluctant nature of the endorsement becomes transparent almost immediately. The Duke ends his speech by turning to the grim business of survival. He calls for the killing of a deer. This is where we are introduced (by a report from a third party) to the character of Jaques: the cynical realist who is quick to point out the cruel and unforgiving side of the natural world. For Jaques, nature is red in tooth and claw: something to be transcended, not embraced.

3. Is the Simple Life Desirable?

The question we are forced to ask is whether the pastoral dream is something we can share. One could, of course, agree with the old-fashioned pastoralist literature and think that it truly is an earthly paradise. But that would seem naive after reading As You Like It: Shakespeare's carefully chosen barbs really do seem to skewer the traditional pastoral dream.

I think there are three more credible positions one can adopt on this question:

• The Pastoral Dream is a Myth: the idea that the life of the shepherd is simple and devoid of hard labour is absurd. A careful study of pastoralist living will reveal that it is an endless struggle to survive. One of the most compelling illustrations of this that I have run across can be found in Jacob Bronowski's famous documentary The Ascent of Man. In Episode 2, Bronowski spends some time following the Bakhtiari, a simple goat-herding community in Iran. Bronowski's certainly paints a grim picture of this type of existence. You can watch it here.

• Our Present Life is the Dream: If we are concerned with a simple existence that leaves plenty of time for leisure activities, then perhaps we need look no further than our present mode of existence (I refer exclusively to Western civilisation). We live longer; we eat better; we have access to innumerable technologies that make our lives simpler; we are better educated; we have time to explore and live life to its fullest. Now, it may not seem that way to many people, and there may be plenty of room for improvement, but it is still a damn sight better than pastoralism.

• The Pastoral Dream is Attainable: there are those who think our present mode of existence is unstable, that our over-reliance on environmentally harmful technologies is a recipe for disaster. The simple-minded among them might advocate a direct return to the grim pastoralism of the past; the fatalistic among them might think this to be unavoidable. But perhaps there is an alternative to both. Perhaps we do not need to return to the ignorance of the past. Perhaps we can use the knowledge we have gained, and the technological base which we have established, to develop a more harmonious relationship with nature. Maybe then we will have attained the longed-for state of existence that Virgil imagined and Shakespeare equivocated over.

As You Like It (Part 1): Plot and Production

Tweet

This post is part of my series on Shakespeare's comedies. The series is an indulgent exploration of philosophic themes in Shakespeare's comedies. I have already done one post explaining what is meant by designating a play a "comedy". As discussed there, most Shakespearean comedies incorporate tragic elements.

I have decided to begin this odyssey with As You Like, which is a play I like well enough although I know that some find it intolerable. More pity them.


What Happens?
Since I plan on writing several mini-essays on this play, I feel it incumbent upon me to summarise what it is all about. But frankly the information is so readily available elsewhere, and these essays are mainly designed for those who have already read or watched the play, that it seems a trifle unnecessary. Nonetheless, here is the gist of things.

• A group of characters are forced to flee their aristocratic lives to go live in the Forest of Arden. This is a mythical pastoral setting in which they discourse on the nature of life, love and everything in between.

That's it. The play has no other plot worth talking about since that's not the point. The point is to provide a forum for the comedic exploration of life. The genius of the play derives from the richly philosophical dialogues and speeches, which I will be covering in later posts.

If you think this is a bit skimpy on detail, then don't worry. Additional plot points will be fleshed out when I consider the different themes and characters.

Productions

As with all things Shakespearean, watching a performance is absolutely essential to understanding the play. Reading the written word can only take you so far. A good performance will get you to think about the play in different ways. I know this from my own experience: there are pauses, emphases and inflections that give weight and volume to certain lines that often seem incongruous on the page. Actions, gestures and facial expressions also do much to bring the world of the play to life.

But since we don't all have easy access to top quality theatre productions, we have to rely on film productions. I have watched two such productions of the play: the BBC television production from the late 1970s/ early 1980s; and the 2006 Kenneth Branagh directed adaptation.

The BBC production is faithful, if a trifle dull. There was a time when you could watch it on thebardtube (a channel on youtube). Alas, that channel has been shut down in the past few days.

The Branagh adaptation is a different story. I enjoyed it immensely, although I have read terrible reviews. Here are some reasons why I like it:

The Japanese Setting - Branagh chose to set the play in a British enclave in 19th C Japan. This makes for a particularly humorous rendition of the wrestling match (Act 1, Scene 2) which becomes a sumo wrestling match. I have seen some objections to the Japanese setting on the grounds that it is a quintessentially English play. I can't follow that. One may as well object to the Japanese setting of the Mikado on the grounds that it is a quintessentially British satire. I might object to someone setting Shakespeare's historical plays in a different country and era, but the comedies are really timeless and universal.

The Forest of Arden - the Forest of Arden truly sparkles in this film. The long rolling shots in some scenes add to our appreciation of it and it provides the perfect backdrop for the exploration of the pastoral dream (more on this in future posts).

The Acting - There are some truly wonderful performances in this film. Brian Blessed and Richard Briers are dependable, as always; Kevin Kline does an excellent turn as the melancholy Jaques; Alfred Molina embodies the ironic wit of Touchstone; and Bryce Dallas-Howard makes Rosalind even more appealing than she is on the page.

So yeah, all-in-all I endorse the Branagh adaptation. There have, no doubt, been better stage productions, but as far as film productions go this is the one-to-watch.

Contents

In the remainder of my posts on As You Like It I will be covering:

• The Pastoral Dream - Is the simple life a myth?
• Four Visions of Love
• Fortune and Nature: The Tapestry of Existence
• Touchstone
• Jaques - Cynic or Realist?

Comedy, Tragedy and Tragicomedy

Tweet

This post is part of a series I am doing on the Shakespearean comedies. The series is purely an exercise in self-indulgence: I want to explore for myself the humanistic and philosophic themes that are illustrated in Shakespeare's comedies. If you want to come along for the ride, feel free.

This introductory post explains the differences between tragedies and comedies and looks at how Shakespeare blends elements of both.

I am basing my comments largely on an essay by Helen Gardner. I found this in the Signet Classic edition of As You Like It.  The Signet editions are my preferred editions of Shakespeare. They provide good introductions, historical background and critical commentary, along with well-annotated texts of the plays themselves.


The Comedy and Tragedy Compared
In the world of medieval drama, a comedy was something distinct from what we might nowadays call a comedy. It is thus useful to distinguish two senses of comedy that were current in the 16th C:

• A play which starts in sadness but ends in happiness.
• A play which imitates or satirises common errors of life.

In the 21st C we are most familiar with the second sense of comedy. Watch any stand-up comedian or sitcom and you will usually be watching someone highlighting the absurdities in everyday life. Still we must accept the relevance of the first variety of comedy when it comes to a consideration of Shakespeare.

Is there anything more to be said about the comedic form? Yes, indeed, there is plenty more. But to explore these as yet untapped depths, it becomes useful to contrast the comedy with that other great dramatic form: the tragedy.

The Marks of Comedy
A comedy usually deals, in symbolic form, with humanity's ability to triumph over the disorder, chaos and randomness that populates the universe. The triumph is usually underscored by the play ending in marriage, or at a minimum, with the unification of lovers. The lovers represent the continued cycle of life, and the renewal of opportunities.

Time and plot play interesting roles in the comedy. Interesting mainly because of their almost total absence. The clock is not always ticking in a comedy, nor is there any great concern with plot. It is rare that there are great intrigues to be set up or problems to be resolved. Instead, in the comedic-form, a space or forum is opened up (such as the forests in As You Like It and A Midsummer Night's Dream) in which the characters can explore the perplexities of life and grow into some sort of enlightenment.

The Marks of Tragedy
The tragedy is diametrically opposed to the comedy. There is no triumph over adversity, no renewal, no second chances. In the tragedy, death looms large. A story is told of a character who is destined, due to perhaps their own choices or outside events, for an unhappy end.

Time and plot play crucial roles in the tragedy. The ticking of the clock is ever present: we know that events are unfolding in a logical and deterministic fashion. The plot structures the sequence of events so that we know where they must lead.

The keyword comparisons between comedy and tragedy are illustrated in the table below.

The Tragicomedy
The tragicomedy, obviously, blends elements of both the tragedy and the comedy. The great genius of Shakespeare was his ability to successfully weave tragic and comic elements into nearly all his plays, even the ones that have a predominantly comic form. This has led to many of them being reclassified as "problem plays".

Just consider some examples. As You Like It seems, on the surface, to be a straightforward comedy. Most of the play takes place in a pastoral setting (the Forest of Arden) which provides the stage for the usual comedic events. But Shakespeare places within this environment a cynical character (Jaques) who is willing to point to the cruelty and potential meaninglessness of life. Or take Love's Labour's Lost a play which is dappled with plenty of humorous conversation and witty wordplay, but which does not end with the expected union of lovers.


Personal Opinion
I enjoy the way in which Shakespeare marries elements of comedy and tragedy. But I still prefer the plays in which the comedic form dominates. I suppose we all do. But I prefer them because they accord most closely with my own philosophy of life.

I agree that we live a time-bound existence and that the grim spectre of death is ever-looming. But I do not see this as a tragedy. I see it as a crucial element of the landscape in which comedy can blossom. Death, heartbreak, oppression and adversity, along with love, kindness, friendship and music provide the fuel for ironic enlightenment, which is the ability to step back and laugh when necessary and to re-engage with passion when profitable.