Advertisement

Sleight of Mind: Cognitive Illusions and Shakespearian Desire

  • Gary Taylor
Chapter

Abstract

Cardenio believes that Lucinda has betrayed him. He is wrong. Quixote believes that a herd of sheep is an army. He is wrong. Cardenio and Quixote are ethical, educated, eloquent, sympathetic, and undeniably wrong. The intertwined stories of Cardenio and Quixote dramatize, and forgive, the occasional failures of even the best-intentioned human intelligence.1

Keywords

Confirmation Bias Conjunction Fallacy Henry VIII Base Rate Neglect Cognitive Illusion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 3.
    My approach differs fundamentally from that articulated in Raphael Lyne’s excellent Shakespeare, Rhetoric and Cognition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), which also provides a useful survey of cognitive literary theory (28–67, 251–3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 4.
    See for instance Stephen L. Macknik, Susana Martinez-Conde, and Sandra Blakeslee, Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about Our Everyday Deceptions (New York: Picador, 2011).Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    On the “exacting tyranny of old stories” in DF, see Frances E. Dolan, True Relations: Reading, Literature, and Evidence in Seventeenth-Century England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 242–3.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    Philip Lorenz, “Absonant Desire’: The Question of Cardenio,” in Shakesqueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed. Madhavi Menon (Durham: Duke University Press, 2011), 66, 64.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Margit E. Oswald and Stefan Grosjean, “Confirmation Bias,” in Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory, ed. Rüdier F. Pohl (New York: Psychology Press, 2004), 79–96.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011), 81. Lyne’s Rhetoric and Cognition does not cite Kahneman, but his distinction between fast and slow reading could be related to Kahneman’s between fast System 1 and slow System 2.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Gamaliel Bradford, “‘The History of Cardenio by Mr. Fletcher and Shakespeare,’” Modern Language Notes 25 (1910): 51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 11.
    See Rudolph Schevill, “Theobald’s Double Falsehood ?Modern Philology 9 (1911): 269–85;Google Scholar
  9. Leonard Schwartzstein, “The Text of The Double Falsehood,” Notes and Queries 169 (1954): 471–2;Google Scholar
  10. Harriet Frazier, A Babble of Ancestral Voices: Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Theobald (The Hague: Mouton, 1974);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeffrey Kahan, Shakespeare Imitations, Parodies and Forgeries, 1710–1820, 3 vols. (London: Taylor and Francis, 2004). Stern cites all these critics approvingly, without objection to their focus on Shakespeare.Google Scholar
  12. 18.
    Jackson, “Looking,” Quest, 140–1. Although she elsewhere cites Jackson’s essay, for these linguistic forms Stern (584) acknowledges only the less comprehensive discussion in Stephan Kukowski, “The Hand of John Fletcher in Double Falsehood,” Shakespeare Survey 43 (1991): 88.Google Scholar
  13. 19.
    Oliphant, The Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher: An Attempt to Determine Their Respective Shares and the Shares of Others (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927).Google Scholar
  14. 20.
    Jackson, Studies in Attribution: Middleton and Shakespeare, Jacobean Drama Studies, vol. 79 (Salzburg, 1979); Defining Shakespeare: Pericles as Test Case (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); “Affirmative Particles in Henry VIII,” Notes and Queries 206 (1962): 372–4; “Phrase Length in Henry VIII: Shakespeare and Fletcher,” Notes and Queries 242 (1997): 75–80; “Stage Directions and Speech Headings in Act I of Titus Andronicus Q (1594): Shakespeare or Peele?” Studies in Bibliography 49 (1996): 134–48; “Shakespeare’s Richard II and the Anonymous Thomas of Woodstock,” in Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 14 (2001): 17–65; “The Date and Authorship of Thomas of Woodstock: Evidence and Its Interpretation,” Research Opportunities in Medieval and Renaissance Drama 46 (2007): 67–100; “Some Comments on Michael Egan’s ‘Slurs, Nasal Rhymes and Amputations,’” The Oxfordian 12 (2010): 94–8.Google Scholar
  15. 21.
    Jackson, “The Additions to The Second Maiden’s Tragedy: Shakespeare or Middleton?” Shakespeare Quarterly 41 (1990): 402–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 23.
    William Shakespeare and John Fletcher, King Henry VIII (All Is True), ed. McMullan (London: Thomson, 2000), 185.Google Scholar
  17. 24.
    For a useful historical survey of attribution scholarship, see Brian Vickers, Shakespeare, Co-Author (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 333–43 (Henry VIII), 403–16 (Kinsmen).Google Scholar
  18. 31.
    Phillip Massinger, Plays and Poems, ed. Philip Edwards and Colin Gibson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), IV, 204.Google Scholar
  19. 34.
    Kathleen Menzie Lesko, “Evidence of Restoration Performances: Duke Ferdinand Albrecht’s Annotated Playtexts from 1664–5,” Philological Quarterly 79 (2000): 45.Google Scholar
  20. 35.
    Hume, “Before the Bard: ‘Shakespeare’ in Early Eighteenth-Century London,” ELH 64 (1997): 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 36.
    Keith E. Stanovich and Richard F. West, “On the Failure of Cognitive Ability to Predict Myside and One Side Thinking Biases,” Thinking & Reasoning 14 (2008): 129–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 37.
    Richard F. West, Russell J. Meserve, and Keith E. Stanovich, “Cognitive Sophistication Does Not Attenuate the Bias Blind Spot,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103 (2012): 506–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 39.
    Grafton, Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), esp. pp. 6, 124–7. Schevill’s claim of forgery led to further investigation of DF’s sources by Graham and Freehafer; Frazier’s claim led to Kukowski’s demonstration of Fletcher’s presence.Google Scholar
  24. 40.
    For Stern’s impact, see for instance Michael P. Jensen, “Talking Books with Tiffany Stern,” Shakespeare Newsletter 62.1 (Spring/Summer 2012): 9 (“It convinced me”)Google Scholar
  25. and Lois Potter, The Life of William Shakespeare: A Critical Biography (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 392 (“convincing”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 41.
    The Correspondence of Alexander Pope, ed. George Sherburn, 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 4:102.Google Scholar
  27. 46.
    Robert B. Zajonc, “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 (1968): 1–27; Robert F. Bornstein and Catherine Craver-Lemley, “Mere Exposure Effect,” in Pohl, Cognitive Illusions, 215–34;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. David M. Eagleman, Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain (New York: Vintage, 2011), 64–5;Google Scholar
  29. Dan Gardner, Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear (London: Virgin, 2008), 89.Google Scholar
  30. 47.
    James W. Pennebaker, The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say about Us (New York: Bloomsbury, 2011), ix.Google Scholar
  31. 48.
    See Hugh Craig and Arthur Kinney, eds., Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
  32. 57.
    Francine Melka, “Receptive vs. Productive Aspects of Vocabulary,” in Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, ed. Norbert Schmitt and Michael McCarthy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 84–102;Google Scholar
  33. I. S. P. Nation, Learning Vocabulary in Another Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 23–59.Google Scholar
  34. 58.
    Tversky and Kahneman, “Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment,” Psychological Review 90 (1983): 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 59.
    Kahneman, Thinking, 88, 152, 166–73. For “prior probability” (a.k.a. “base rate”), its relationship to Bayesian statistical reasoning, and its neglect by most people, see Nate Silver, The Signal and the Noise (New York: Penguin, 2012), 242–60.Google Scholar
  36. 62.
    See Robert Folkenflik, “‘Shakespearesque’: The Arden Double Falsehood,” Huntington Library Quarterly 75 (2012): 131–43 (esp. 138). Folkenflik’s review essay was published before Quest.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 66.
    Walter Graham, “The Cardenio-Double Falsehood Problem,” Modern Philology 14 (1916): 275–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 72.
    D. M. McKeithan, The Debt to Shakespeare in the Beaumont and Fletcher Plays (New York: Collier, 1938);Google Scholar
  39. David L. Frost, The School of Shakespeare (Cambridge University Press, 1968), 237–45.Google Scholar
  40. 79.
    On the anti-editorial prejudice, see Gary Taylor, Cultural Selection (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 121–42, and “What is an Author [not]?” Critical Survey 7 (1995): 241–55.Google Scholar
  41. 81.
    David Orr, Beautiful and Pointless: A Guide to Modern Poetry (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 185–8.Google Scholar
  42. 82.
    Julia Briggs, “Tears at the Wedding: Shakespeare’s Last Phase,” in Shakespeare’s Late Plays: New Readings, ed. Jennifer Richards and James Knowles (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999), 221.Google Scholar
  43. 83.
    Jacgar, Enchantment: On Charisma and the Sublime in the Arts of the West (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 3, 38. Pope’s Peri Bathous (to which he confined DF) explicitly contrasts with the Peri Hypsous of Longinus.Google Scholar
  44. 85.
    Kidnie, Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation (New York: Routledge, 2009), 140–64.Google Scholar
  45. 87.
    Peter W. M. Blayney, The First Folio of Shakespeare (Washington, DC: Folger Library, 1991), 17, 21–4.Google Scholar
  46. 94.
    Kahneman and Tversky, “Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures,” Management Science 12 (1979): 313–27. My children, who have often seen this fallacy in operation, call it “the Japanese war plan” (referring to the fact that Japan’s military leaders in 1941 knew that they could defeat the United States only if everything went exactly as they hoped).Google Scholar
  47. 96.
    Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (New York: Random House, 2007), xxi, 102, 318.Google Scholar
  48. 97.
    Gerald Eades Bentley, The Profession of Dramatistin Shakespeare’s Time, 1590–1642 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), 16 (lost plays);Google Scholar
  49. Jonathan L. Payne and Seth Finnegan, “The Effect of Geographic Range on Extinction Risk During Background and Mass Extinction,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104.25 (2007): 10506–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. For a survey of the scientific literature see David Jablonski, “Origination Patterns and Multilevel Processes in Macroevolution,” in Evolution: The Extended Synthesis, ed. M. Pigliucci and G. B. Müller (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010), 335–54. For application of such biological models to the extinction of human artifacts, see Taylor, Cultural Selection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 105.
    An Apology for the Life of Mr. Colley Cibber, Written by Himself, ed. Robert W. Lowe, 2 vols. (London: Nimmo, 1889), 2:233, 248.Google Scholar
  52. 110.
    See particularly Brian Boyd, On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
  53. 122.
    Houston, Shakespearean Sentences: A Study in Style and Syntax (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), 199–201;Google Scholar
  54. McDonald, Shakespeare’s Late Style (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 88–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Terri Bourus and Gary Taylor 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary Taylor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations