Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Marco Sgarbi

Shakespeare, William

Born: 1564
Died: 1616
  • Patrick GrayEmail author
  • Helen Clifford
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_538-1

Abstract

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is the world’s most highly acclaimed literary figure, known for his plays and poems. Shakespeare is celebrated for his comic touch; kaleidoscopic, tightly structured verse; and genial sense of human nature, manifest in finely detailed individual characterization. Less widely recognized, however, is the depth of his engagement with classical and contemporary philosophy, which bears comparison to more obviously learned contemporaries such as Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), John Case (c. 1540–1600), and Justus Lipsius (1547–1606).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

Primary Literature

  1. Shakespeare, William. 2011. The Arden Shakespeare complete works. Revised Edition, ed Richard Proudfoot, Ann Thompson, and David Scott Kastan. London/New York: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama for the Arden Shakespeare.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Auerbach, Erich. 1946. Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur. Bern: Verlag. English edition: Auerbach, Erich. 2011. Mimesis: The representation of reality in western literature. Trans. Trask, Willard R. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bate, Jonathan. 2008. Soul of the age: The life, mind, and world of William Shakespeare. London/New York: Viking-Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, Millicent. 2002. Shakespeare’s tragic skepticism. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevington, David. 2008. Shakespeare’s ideas: More things in heaven and earth. Oxford/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, Graham. 1987. Shakespeare’s skepticism. Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burrow, Colin. 2013. Shakespeare and classical antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cavell, Stanley. 2003. Disowning knowledge in seven plays of Shakespeare. Updated Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, Helen. 2006. Shakespeare and the mystery plays. In Shakespeare and Elizabethan popular culture, ed. Stuart Gillespie and Neil Rhodes, 18–41. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama for the Arden Shakespeare.Google Scholar
  9. Cox, John D. 2007. Seeming knowledge: Shakespeare and skeptical faith. Waco: Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cutrofello, Andrew. 2014. All for nothing: Hamlet’s negativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Decoursey, M. 2011. Three interpretations of the lesbian rule in early modern Europe. Notes and Queries 58: 293–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elton, W.R. 1997. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida. Journal of the History of Ideas 58: 331–337.Google Scholar
  13. Engle, Lars. 1993. Shakespearean pragmatism: Market of his time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gray, Patrick. 2007. Faith and doubt: An alternative dialectic. In In(ter)discipline: New languages for criticism, ed. Gillian Beer, Malcolm Bowie, and Beate Perry, 174–187. Oxford: Legenda.Google Scholar
  15. Gray, Patrick. 2014. ‘HIDE THY SELFE’: Hamlet, Montaigne, and Epicurean ethics. In Shakespeare and renaissance ethics, ed. Patrick Gray and John D. Cox, 213–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray, Patrick. 2016a. The compassionate stoic: Brutus as accidental hero. Shakespeare Jahrbuch 150: 30–44.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, Patrick. 2016b. Shakespeare vs. Seneca: Competing visions of human dignity. In Brill’s companion to the reception of Senecan tragedy: Scholarly, theatrical, and literary receptions, ed. Eric Dodson-Robinson, 203–232. Leiden/Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray, Patrick. 2017. Shakespeare et la reconnaissance: l’Anerkennung comme interpellation intersubjective. In Shakespeare au risque de la philosophie, ed. Pascale Drouet and Philippe Grosos, 159–182. Paris: Éditions Hermann.Google Scholar
  19. Gray, Patrick. 2018a. Choosing between shame and guilt: Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet, Lear. In Shakespeare and the soliloquy in early modern English drama, ed. A.D. Cousins and Daniel Derrin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gray, Patrick. 2018b. Shakespeare and the fall of the Roman Republic: Selfhood, stoicism, and civil war. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gray, Patrick, and John D. Cox, eds. 2014. Shakespeare and renaissance ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Greenblatt, Stephen. 2011. The swerve: How the world became modern. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  23. Hamlin, William M. 2005a. Tragedy and Scepticism in Shakespeare’s England. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamlin, William M. 2005b. What did Montaigne’s skepticism mean to Shakespeare and his contemporaries? Montaigne Studies 17: 195–210.Google Scholar
  25. Hamlin, William M. 2013. Montaigne’s English Journey: Reading the essays in Shakespeare’s Day. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamlin, William M. 2016. Montaigne and Shakespeare. In The Oxford handbook of Montaigne, ed. Philippe Desan, 328–346. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Headlam Wells, Robin. 2005. Shakespeare’s humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hershinow, David. 2014. Diogenes the cynic and Shakespeare’s bitter fool: The politics and aesthetics of free speech. Criticism 56: 807–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holbrook, Peter. 2010. Shakespeare’s individualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kottman, Paul A., ed. 2009. Philosophers on Shakespeare. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kuzner, James. 2011. Open subjects: English renaissance republicans, modern selfhoods, and the virtue of vulnerability. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, L.C. 1945. Shakespeare, Lucretius, and the commonplace. Review of English Studies 21: 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miles, Geoffrey. 1996. Shakespeare and the constant romans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nuttall, A.D. 2007. Shakespeare the Thinker. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Paulin, Roger. 2012. Shakespeare and Germany. In Shakespeare and the eighteenth century, ed. Fiona Ritchie and Peter Sabor, 314–330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pierce, Robert B. 2005. From anecdotal philosophy to Drama: Shakespeare’s Apemantus as cynic. Classical and Modern Literature 25: 77–88.Google Scholar
  37. Rabkin, Norman. 1981. Shakespeare and the problem of meaning. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Raspa, Anthony. 2016. Shakespeare the renaissance humanist: Moral philosophy and his plays. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rossiter, A.P. 1961. Angel with horns: Fifteen lectures on Shakespeare. London: Longman’s, Green.Google Scholar
  40. Rossky, William. 1958. Imagination in the English renaissance: Psychology and poetic. Studies in the Renaissance 5: 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Selleck, Nancy. 2008. The interpersonal idiom in Shakespeare, Donne, and early modern culture. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sherman, Anita Gilman. 2007. Skepticism and memory in Shakespeare and Donne. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skinner, Quentin. 1998. Liberty before liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Strier, Richard. 2011. The unrepentant renaissance: From Petrarch to Shakespeare to Milton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tilmouth, Christopher. 2013. Passion and intersubjectivity in early modern literature. In Passions and subjectivity in early modern culture, ed. Brian Cummings and Freya Sierhuis. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Durham UniversityDurhamUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Marco Sgarbi
    • 1
  1. 1.University Ca' Foscari VeniceVeniceItaly