Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- A Note on Texts
- Series Editor's Preface
- Dedication
- 1 Introduction
- 2 My Kingdom for a Ghost: Counterfactual Thinking and Hamlet
- 3 Reversing Good and Evil: Counterfactual Thinking and King Lear
- 4 Staging Passivity: Counterfactual Thinking and Macbeth
- 5 Reversing Time: Counterfactual Thinking and The Winter's Tale
- 6 ‘Why Indeed Did I Marry?’: Counterfactual Thinking and Othello
- 7 Conclusion
- Notes
- Further Reading
- Index
Series Editor's Preface
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2016
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- A Note on Texts
- Series Editor's Preface
- Dedication
- 1 Introduction
- 2 My Kingdom for a Ghost: Counterfactual Thinking and Hamlet
- 3 Reversing Good and Evil: Counterfactual Thinking and King Lear
- 4 Staging Passivity: Counterfactual Thinking and Macbeth
- 5 Reversing Time: Counterfactual Thinking and The Winter's Tale
- 6 ‘Why Indeed Did I Marry?’: Counterfactual Thinking and Othello
- 7 Conclusion
- Notes
- Further Reading
- Index
Summary
Picture Macbeth alone on stage, staring intently into empty space. ‘Is this a dagger which I see before me?’ he asks, grasping decisively at the air. On one hand, this is a quintessentially theatrical question. At once an object and a vector, the dagger describes the possibility of knowledge (‘Is this a dagger’) in specifically visual and spatial terms (‘which I see before me?’). At the same time, Macbeth is posing a quintessentially philosophical question, one that assumes knowledge to be both conditional and experiential, and that probes the relationship between certainty and perception as well as intention and action. It is from this shared ground of art and inquiry, of theatre and theory, that this series advances its basic premise: Shakespeare is philosophical.
It seems like a simple enough claim. But what does it mean exactly, beyond the parameters of this specific moment in Macbeth? Does it mean that Shakespeare had something we could think of as his own philosophy? Does it mean that he was influenced by particular philosophical schools, texts, and thinkers? Does it mean, conversely, that modern philosophers have been influenced by him, that Shakespeare's plays and poems have been, and continue to be, resources for philosophical thought and speculation?
The answer is ‘yes’ all around. These are all useful ways of conceiving a philosophical Shakespeare and all point to lines of inquiry that this series welcomes. But Shakespeare is philosophical in a much more fundamental way as well. Shakespeare is philosophical because the plays and poems actively create new worlds of knowledge and new scenes of ethical encounter. They ask big questions, make bold arguments, and develop new vocabularies in order to think what might otherwise be unthinkable. Through both their scenarios and their imagery, the plays and poems engage the qualities of consciousness, the consequences of human action, the phenomenology of motive and attention, the conditions of personhood, and the relationship among different orders of reality and experience. This is writing and dramaturgy, moreover, that consistently experiments with a broad range of conceptual crossings, between love and subjectivity, nature and politics, and temporality and form.
Edinburgh Critical Studies in Shakespeare and Philosophy takes seriously these speculative and world-making dimensions of Shakespeare's work.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shakespeare in HindsightCounterfactual Thinking and Shakespearean Tragedy, pp. xi - xiiiPublisher: Edinburgh University PressPrint publication year: 2015