Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:07:18.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hamlet and Counter-Humanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Ronald Knowles
Ronald Knowles*
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay interprets the question of subjectivity in Hamlet by reappraising Renaissance skepticism and by reexamining the medieval debate concerning the misery of man's existence, and the Renaissance celebration of man. A central concern is the significance of the commonplace in humanist rhetoric and dialectic, by which Stoic and Christian thought depreciates passion. In his anguish Hamlet discovers a unique subjectivity as he attempts to reject the wisdom of tradition. But the nature of thought cannot be separated from the nature of the mind that thinks, and Hamlet's selfhood capitulates to the role.

Type
Studies
Information
Renaissance Quarterly , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , Winter 1999 , pp. 1046 - 1069
Copyright
Copyright © Renaissance Society of America 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldwin, T W. William Shakespere's Small Latine & Lesse Greeke. 2 vols. Urbana, 1944.Google Scholar
Baldwin, William. A Treatise of Morall Philosophic. Originally 1547 but subsequently enlarged by Thomas Palfreyman. Facsimile and introduction by Robert Hood Bowers. Gainsville, 1967.Google Scholar
Barker, Francis. The Tremulous Private Body. Essays on Subjection. London and New York, 1984.Google Scholar
Battenhouse, Roy W. “Hamlet's Apostrophe on Man: Clue to the Tragedy.” PMLA 66 (1951): 1073–1113.Google Scholar
Belsey, Catherine. The Subject of Tragedy. Identity and Difference in Renaissance Drama. London and New York, 1985.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. W. “ Nosce te ipsum. Some Medieval and Modern Interpretations.” In The Humane Medievalist. ed. Piero, Boitani, 135-71. Roma, 1982. The Bible. Geneva, 1597.Google Scholar
Boyce, Benjamin. “The Stoic consolatio. and Shakespeare.” PMLA 64 (1949): 771-80.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst, Paul Oskar, Kristeller, and John, Randell Jr., eds. The Renaissance Philosophy of Man. Chicago and London, 1963.Google Scholar
Cicero, C. D.. Cicero's Academics. Trans. Yonge, . London, 1891.Google Scholar
Craig, Hardin. “Hamlet's Book.” Huntington Library Bulleti. 6 (1934): 17–37.Google Scholar
Eliot, T S. “Hamlet (1919).” In Selected Prose of T.S. Eliot. ed. Frank, Kermode. London, 1975.Google Scholar
Ellrodt, Robert. “Self-consciousness in Montaigne and Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Surve. 28 (1975): 37–50.Google Scholar
Elizabeth, Epictetus. The Moral Discourses of Epictetus. Trans. Carter, . London, 1911.Google Scholar
Erasmus, Desiderius. De Conscribendis Epistolis. In Collected Works of Erasmus. vol. 25, ed. J.K., Sowards, 1–254. Toronto and London, 1985.Google Scholar
Florio, John. The Essayes of Michael Lord of Montaigne. London, 1893.Google Scholar
Forker, Charles. “Shakespeare's Theatrical Symbolism and Its Function in Hamlet .”. In Fancy's Images. 3–17. Carbondale and Edwardsville, 1990.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. “Technologies of the Self.” In Technologies of the Self. A Seminar with Michel Foucault. ed. Luther H., Martin, Huck, Gutman, and Patrick H., Hutton, 16–49. London, 1988.Google Scholar
Gorfain, Phyllis. “Toward a Theory of Play and the Carnivalesque in Hamlet .” Hamlet Studies. 13 (1991): 25–49.Google Scholar
Harmon, Alice. “How great was Shakespeare's debt to Montaigne?” PMLA 57 (1942): 988–1008.Google Scholar
Haydn, Hiram. The Counter Renaissance. New York, 1950.Google Scholar
Hayward, John. A Treatise of Union. London, 1604.Google Scholar
Hoskins, John. Directions for Speech and Style. Ed. Hoyt H., Hudson. Princeton, 1935.Google Scholar
Howell, A. C. “ Res et Verba. Words and Things.” ELH 13 (1946): 131-42.Google Scholar
Howell, W. S. Logic and Rhetoric in England 1500-1700. New York, 1956.Google Scholar
Jacobus, Lee A. Shakespeare and the Dialectic of Certainty. New York, 1992.Google Scholar
Jardine, Lisa. “Humanistic Logic.” In The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy. ed. Charles B., Schmitt, Quentin, Skinner, Ekhart, Kessler, and Jill, Kray, 173-98. Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar
Jones-Davies, M. T. “Shakespeare in the Humanist Tradition: The Skeptical Doubts and Their Expression in Paradoxes.” In Shakespeare and Cultural Traditions. ed. Tetsuo, Kishi, Roger, Pringle and Stanley, Wells, 99–109. London and Toronto, 1994.Google Scholar
Joseph, Sister Miriam. Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language. New York, 1947.Google Scholar
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. “Humanism and Moral Philosophy.” In Renaissance Humanism. Foundation, Forms and Legacy. vol. 3 (Humanism and the Disciplines). ed. Albert, Rabil Jr., 271–309. Philadelphia, 1988.Google Scholar
Ladner, Gerhart B. “ Homo Viator. Medieval Ideas on Alienation and Order.” Speculum. 42 (1967): 234-59.Google Scholar
Lechner, Sister Joan Marie. Renaissance Concepts of the Commonplaces. Westport, 1962.Google Scholar
Lewis, Robert E., ed. De Miseria Conditions Humane. Athens, 1978.Google Scholar
Mack, Peter. Renaissance Argument. Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic. Leiden, 1993.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Charles Osborne. The Rhetoric of Tragedy. Amherst, 1966.Google Scholar
Mallarmé, Stéphane. “Hamlet et Fortinbras.” La revue blanch. 2:2 (1896), 96. Reprinted Geneve, 1968.Google Scholar
Maritain, Jacques. The Dream of Descartes. London, 1946.Google Scholar
Maus, Katharine Eisaman. Inwardness and Theater in the English Renaissance. Chicago and London, 1995.Google Scholar
Morgan, Roberta. “Some Stoic lines in Hamle. and the problem of Interpretation.” Philological Quarterl. 20 (1941): 548-58.Google Scholar
Morris, Harry. “ Hamle. as a Memento Mori Poem.” PMLA 90 (1970): 1035-40.Google Scholar
Popkin, Richard H. The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza. Berkeley and London, 1979.Google Scholar
Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie. Ed. Edward, Arber. London, 1906.Google Scholar
Schacht, Richard. Alienation. London, 1971.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Harold, Jenkins. London and New York, 1982.Google Scholar
Sidney, Sir Philip. An Apology for Poetry. Ed. Geoffrey, Shepherd. Manchester, 1973.Google Scholar
Sozzi, Lionello. “La ‘Dignitas Hominis’ dans la Litterature Francaise de la Renaissance.” In Humanism in France at the End of the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance. ed. A. H. T., Levi, 176-98. Manchester, 1970.Google Scholar
Spencer, Theodore. Shakespeare and the Nature of Man. New York and Cambridge, 1943.Google Scholar
Stanley, Thomas. The History of Philosophy. 3 vols. London, 1655-62. (The single folio third edition of 1701 is quoted here.)Google Scholar
Taylor, George Coffin. Shakespeare's Debt to Montaigne. Cambridge, MA, 1925.Google Scholar
Trinkaus, Charles. Adversity's Noblemen. New York, 1940.Google Scholar
Trinkaus, Charles. In Our Image and Likeness. 2 vols. London, 1970.Google Scholar
Villey, Pierre. Les Sources et L'Evolution Des Essais De Montaigne. 2 vols. Paris, 1908.Google Scholar
Wilson, Thomas. The Rule of Reason. London, 1551.Google Scholar