Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2007 :: April ::
"Shakespeare and the Uses of Power"
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0267  Monday, 2 April 2007

From: 		David Basch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Sunday, 01 Apr 2007 11:29:26 -0400
Subject: 18.0224 "Shakespeare and the Uses of Power"
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0224 "Shakespeare and the Uses of Power"

Thanks to Joseph Egert, I had a chance to read Stephen Greenblatt's 
article, "Shakespeare and the Uses of Power" (4.12.07).

In an otherwise very informative and entertaining article, I have a few 
quibbles. Greenblatt comes to the conclusion that Shakespeare does not 
have an overall ethical concept. Greenblatt doesn't explain this very 
well in his use of the concepts of Bernard Williams on this. Greenblatt 
seems to follow Williams in using the poles of "reason" and "desire" as 
the ethical duality confronting mankind. But how about the simple 
feeling that some things are just "not right" and should not be done?

Greenblatt even mentions the operations of this phenomenon in the 
actions of simple people displaying this pure morality-an ethical 
imperative- borne of compassion for the other and for what is right 
action. In the case of Macbeth, Macbeth indeed subscribes to a higher 
morality that he overrules even though he recognizes the practical 
problems that usurpation brings with it. The latter is just another 
reason to refrain from evil. But for him and his Lady ambition is just 
too strong.

Note that Hector in Troilus and Cressida raises the issue of a higher, 
universal morality in the play, but then, like Macbeth, he and Troy 
abandon the pursuit of this in favor of pursuing honor as a more 
pressing imperative.

I also find that Greenblatt does not do justice to Prospero's sense of 
justice since Greenblatt only partially quotes Prospero as letting 
"reason" govern his actions in avoiding his dispensation of full 
punishment for the evil doers in the play. Prospero actually says:

         Though with their high wrongs I am struck to the quick,
         Yet with my nobler reason 'gaitist my fury
         Do I take part: the rarer action is
         In virtue than in vengeance: they being penitent,
         The sole drift of my purpose doth extend
         Not a frown further.

Prospero is saying that wrong is wrong but that he is willing to curb 
his anger just so the baddies repent. Of course, this doesn't 
necessarily mean that Shakespeare subscribes to the view taken by the 
wise Prospero, gifted with powers far beyond that of mortal men, but I 
wager that he does.

I note that in Pericles, there is manifest a world view of measure for 
measure as the evil ones are punished and the righteous ones are 
ultimately rewarded. I recognize here the formula of most Hollywood 
films in the era when Hollywood was at its world apex in turning out 
films that were admired the world over.

 From the looks of things, a case can be made that Shakespeare does 
indeed subscribe to a universal morality that, though it operates slowly 
and does not bring immediate reward to good persons (or even any reward 
discernable in this life) or immediate punishment for the evil doers, it 
is a force that must be recognized and honored, and which must give us 
pause in our actions even though selfish desires will in the moment 
override it. Note that this "still small voice" of morality remains in 
operation behind the scenes and even returns to plague evil doers, with 
Lady Macbeth as a most striking instance of the phenomenon of the guilty 
conscience coming from a seemingly dedicated killer.

Another quibble, Greenblatt asserts that Prospero "leaves Ariel behind." 
In fact, Ariel is not left behind on the island but is given his 
freedom, presumably to speak compassion and morality in the ear of 
anyone who will listen. It is only Caliban that is left on the island.

In sum, let us not follow Greenblatt in making Shakespeare an exponent 
of the view of a world without intrinsic ethical imperatives-if I 
understand Greenblatt right-since the poet leaves open the operations of 
these forces in the universe even if he is not dogmatic about asserting 
this.

David Basch

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.