Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy pp 1–8Cite as

Shakespeare, William

Born: 1564

Died: 1616

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 101 Accesses

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 via an institution.

References

Primary Literature

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Bate, Jonathan. 2008. Soul of the age: The life, mind, and world of William Shakespeare. London/New York: Viking-Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Millicent. 2002. Shakespeare’s tragic skepticism. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bevington, David. 2008. Shakespeare’s ideas: More things in heaven and earth. Oxford/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, Graham. 1987. Shakespeare’s skepticism. Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrow, Colin. 2013. Shakespeare and classical antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavell, Stanley. 2003. Disowning knowledge in seven plays of Shakespeare. Updated Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cox, John D. 2007. Seeming knowledge: Shakespeare and skeptical faith. Waco: Baylor University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutrofello, Andrew. 2014. All for nothing: Hamlet’s negativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decoursey, M. 2011. Three interpretations of the lesbian rule in early modern Europe. Notes and Queries 58: 293–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Engle, Lars. 1993. Shakespearean pragmatism: Market of his time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Patrick. 2016a. The compassionate stoic: Brutus as accidental hero. Shakespeare Jahrbuch 150: 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gray, Patrick. 2018b. Shakespeare and the fall of the Roman Republic: Selfhood, stoicism, and civil war. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Patrick, and John D. Cox, eds. 2014. Shakespeare and renaissance ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenblatt, Stephen. 2011. The swerve: How the world became modern. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin, William M. 2005a. Tragedy and Scepticism in Shakespeare’s England. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin, William M. 2005b. What did Montaigne’s skepticism mean to Shakespeare and his contemporaries? Montaigne Studies 17: 195–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin, William M. 2013. Montaigne’s English Journey: Reading the essays in Shakespeare’s Day. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin, William M. 2016. Montaigne and Shakespeare. In The Oxford handbook of Montaigne, ed. Philippe Desan, 328–346. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Headlam Wells, Robin. 2005. Shakespeare’s humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hershinow, David. 2014. Diogenes the cynic and Shakespeare’s bitter fool: The politics and aesthetics of free speech. Criticism 56: 807–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, Peter. 2010. Shakespeare’s individualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kottman, Paul A., ed. 2009. Philosophers on Shakespeare. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzner, James. 2011. Open subjects: English renaissance republicans, modern selfhoods, and the virtue of vulnerability. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L.C. 1945. Shakespeare, Lucretius, and the commonplace. Review of English Studies 21: 174–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, Geoffrey. 1996. Shakespeare and the constant romans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nuttall, A.D. 2007. Shakespeare the Thinker. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulin, Roger. 2012. Shakespeare and Germany. In Shakespeare and the eighteenth century, ed. Fiona Ritchie and Peter Sabor, 314–330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, Robert B. 2005. From anecdotal philosophy to Drama: Shakespeare’s Apemantus as cynic. Classical and Modern Literature 25: 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabkin, Norman. 1981. Shakespeare and the problem of meaning. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raspa, Anthony. 2016. Shakespeare the renaissance humanist: Moral philosophy and his plays. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, A.P. 1961. Angel with horns: Fifteen lectures on Shakespeare. London: Longman’s, Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossky, William. 1958. Imagination in the English renaissance: Psychology and poetic. Studies in the Renaissance 5: 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selleck, Nancy. 2008. The interpersonal idiom in Shakespeare, Donne, and early modern culture. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, Anita Gilman. 2007. Skepticism and memory in Shakespeare and Donne. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, Quentin. 1998. Liberty before liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strier, Richard. 2011. The unrepentant renaissance: From Petrarch to Shakespeare to Milton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Durham University, Durham, UK

    Patrick Gray & Helen Clifford

Authors
  1. Patrick Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen Clifford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Gray .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Philosophy a. Cultural Heritage, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Dept. of Philosophy a. Cultural Heritage, Venezia, Italy

    Marco Sgarbi

Section Editor information

  1. University Ca' Foscari Venice, Dorsoduro 3246, 30123, Venice, Italy

    Marco Sgarbi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Gray, P., Clifford, H. (2018). Shakespeare, William. In: Sgarbi, M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_538-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_538-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02848-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02848-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation