MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379617658 · doi:10.1353/mlr.2004.a826911

Of Philosophers and Kings: Political Philosophy in Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' and 'King Lear' by Leon Harold Craig (review)

2004· article· en· W4379617658 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Modern Language Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsLiteraturePower (physics)ScrutinyUnrestHistoryHumanismReading (process)PhilosophyClassicsArtTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MLR, 99.3, 2004 745 not surprising given the threat of civil unrest in the years of the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis. Political topicality is evident in all these rewritings of Shakespeare's plays, including Shadwell's The History of Timon ofAthens, theMan-Hater, Ravenscroft 's Titus Andronicus, Otway's The History and Fall of Caius Marius, and Tate's notorious adaptation of King Lear. But even if the preoccupations revealed by these plays are of a more serious nature, they share an important trait with the plays of the 1660s: their verbal 'depictive power' (p. 140) is reinforced by effectivetheatrical images, as the detailed stage directions employed by Restoration adapters indicate. This study analyses a range of primary and secondary material from different perspectives: a rigorous linguistic scrutiny of the play-texts is accompanied by the insertion of Restoration dramatists' and commentators' views on such plays. Attention is also devoted to the plays' critical history. This approach allows Murray to demon? strate that Shakespeare's Restoration adaptations deserve to be treated as literary and theatrical achievements in their own right, rather than being compared unfavourably (as they traditionally have) with the original texts. University of Reading Michela Calore Of Philosophers and Kings: Political Philosophy in Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' and 'King Lear'. By Leon Harold Craig. Toronto, Buffalo, NY, and London: University of Toronto Press. 2001. xi + 4o6pp. $70; ?50. ISBN 0-8020-357 i-x. Of Philosophers and Kings combines relatively unproblematic contentions, commonplaces even, with a range of wholly untenable views. Only a reviewer, I suspect, will be subjected to the trials of reading this book in its entirety: for reasons known only to the writer and publisher, 268 pages of digressive text are accompanied by an addi? tional 124 pages of endnotes consisting, in the main, of lengthy quotations from 'the opinions of a select group of scholars, many from an earlier generation' (pp. 11-12). Focusing primarily on Macbeth and King Lear, but with three shorter discussions of Othello, The Winter's Tale, and Measure for Measure, Craig sets out to demonstrate that 'Shakespeare is as great a philosopher as he is a poet' (p. 4). For the reader (Craig is unabashed by this anachronistic category, and has little interest in the verbal text as a medium of performance), the task is one of 'figuring out the plot' with the aim of 'seeing what is really going on and why' (pp. 15-16). The reward will be a 'clear and accurate idea of human nature' as one grasps the 'inner rationale' ofthe plays (p. 17). Craig is hostile towards what he dismisses as narrow, institutional senses ofphilosophy, part of his anxiety about the critical theory he constantly snipes at, settling fora catchall definition that all but makes the word redundant: it is 'nothing more nor less than the rigorous, persistent, thus usually systematic employment of one's natural powers to resolve one's puzzlement' (p. 18). What this amounts to in practice is a reading of the plays that confirms essentialist, neo-conservative beliefs in oppressive cate? gories such as 'truth' and 'nature' as they constitute and protect institutions such as 'marriage' and the 'family'. There is a bewildering intellectual naivety: 'to understand Macbeth', Craig insists, 'to understand it as its author understood it,one must practice [. . .] philosophy' (p. 31) and gain access to 'certain truly timeless questions' (p. 110). Macbeth 'shows not only how invaluable can be a philosopher's understanding of politics', but the relevance to people's lives of 'several of the most challenging meta? physical and cosmological questions'. In King Lear, we see 'philosophy itself arising out of man's [sie] confrontation with Nature' (p. 17). Assertion rather than argument is the style in a book whose energy for lapidary observations rarely diminishes. That Macbeth dramatizes, in part, 'how not to succeed in establishing oneself as a new prince' (p. 34) is hardly open to question, nor is the proximity of Machiavelli to all 746 Reviews this; and Craig explores, interestingly enough, the characters of Rosse and Lenox to suggest that 'Machiavellians' do 'not all get their just come-uppance'. 'Lenox's Machiavellian duplicity', however, is in the 'service of...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it