Skip to main content
  • 99 Accesses

Abstract

What happens in Shakespeare with money and poverty, with the poor laws and the beginning of credit, happens also with the self and the reflection on the self and its actions. The mechanism of combustion that representation undergoes permeates the questions of knowledge, of our partaking in humanity: the self with its reflections in the deeds, in consciousness, in the perception of time; value and its reflections in the affects, in human relations, the constitution of one’s life in wealth or in poverty; the act and its rays in the imagination, again in consciousness, its shadows in guilt, its more or less adequate knowledge; the substance and its shadows; money and the beginning of an ontology of debt and credit.

The play’s the thing

Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King.

Hamlet, 2.2.600–601

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Karl Marx, The Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, in Karl Marx-Frederick Engels: Collected Works, vol. 1 (New York: International Publishers, 1975), pp. 25–109.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Florio’s edition of Montaigne’s Essays (London: J. M. Dent, 2012), p. 2, 12: “The heart and life of a mighty and triumphant emperor, is but the breakfast of a seely little worm.” I cannot touch on the important relation between Shakespeare and Montaigne here.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For more on this relation, see Colin McGinn, Shakespeare’s Philosophy: Discovering the Meaning behind the Plays (New York: HarperCollins, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  4. See also Hugh Grady, Shakespeare, Machiavelli, and Montaigne: Power and Subjectivity from Richard II to Hamlet (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Lars Engle, “Shame and Reflection in Montaigne and Shakespeare,” in Shakespeare Survey 63: Shakespeare’s English Histories and Their Afterlives, ed. by P. Holland (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 249–61;

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Peter Mack, Reading and Rhetoric in Montaigne and Shakespeare (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2010);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Serena Jourdan, The sparrow and the Flea: The Sense of Providence in Shakespeare and Montaigne (Salzburg, Austria: Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universität Salzburg, 1983);

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tetsuo Anzai, Shakespeare and Montaigne Reconsidered (Tokyo: Renaissance Institute, Sophia University, 1986);

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sir W. Bailey, Shakespeare and Montaigne: (Manchester: Herald and Walker, 1895);

    Google Scholar 

  10. Robert Ellrodt, “Self-Consistency in Montaigne and Shakespeare,” in Shakespeare and the Mediterranean, Selected Proceedings of the International Shakespeare Association World Congress (Valencia, Spain: University of Delaware Press, 2004), pp. 135–51;

    Google Scholar 

  11. Robert Ellrodt, Montaigne et Shakespeare: l’emergence de la conscience moderne (Paris: José Corti, 2011);

    Google Scholar 

  12. Susanne Tuerck, Shakespeare und Montaigne: Ein Beitrag zur Hamlet-Frage (Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1930);

    Google Scholar 

  13. John Mackinnon Robertson, Montaigne and Shakespeare (London: A. and C. Black, 1909 [1897]);

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jonathan Bate, “Montaigne and Shakespeare,” radio essay, BBC, January 19, 2011;

    Google Scholar 

  15. George Coffin Taylor, Shakspere’s Debt to Montaigne (Cambridge: Literary Licensing, 1925);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Alice Harmon, “How Great was Shakespeare’s Debt to Montaigne?,” PMLA 57 (1942): pp. 988–1008;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Elizabeth Robbins Hooker, “The Relation of Shakespeare to Montaigne,” PMLA 17 (1902): pp. 312–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. I changed the translation slightly. For the Verso edition see Benjamin, The Origin of the German Tragic Drama (London: Verso, 1998), p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  19. The pages continue with the reading of Richard II. I leave out of my analysis the historical plays; for the reading of the concept of time in them, I refer to the beautiful book of Paola Pugliatti, Shakespeare, the Historian (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 2013 Margherita Pascucci

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pascucci, M. (2013). This Is I, Hamlet the Dane. In: Philosophical Readings of Shakespeare. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137324580_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics