What do you think?
Rate this book
گردونه آتش: تفسیرهایی بر تراژدی شکسپیری
Originally published in 1930, Wheel of Fire is the masterwork of the brilliant English scholar G. Wilson Knight in which he founds a new and influential school of Shakespearean criticism.
494 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1930
21 people are currently reading
464 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
October 20, 2020
G. Wilson Knight is one of the better Shakespeare critics in the 20th Century. Building on A.C. Bradley’s infamous lectures on Shakespearean Tragedy, he writes a series of inter textual analysis of the tragedies and romances in this excellent book of literary criticism. Thanks to Knight, I gained a new appreciation for Timon of Athens and Troilus and Cressidus that I would otherwise not have had. His analyses of Hamlet are similarly enlightening. I would rate this as one of the two or three best books of criticism of Shakespeare and plan to read more of his books.
Want to read
January 28, 2019Brutus is confronted with a task from which his nature revolts.
from Brutus and Macbeth
This is a book that I bought half a century ago (more actually) during my brief time as an English major in college. The old edition that I have has an Introduction by T.S. Eliot. I've read some of the essays in here, most recently the excellent "Brutus and Macbeth".
Here's a complete list of the book's chapters.
I. On the Principles of Shakespeare Interpretation.
II. The Embassy of Death: an Essay on Hamlet
III. The philosophy of Troilus and Cressida
IV. Measure for Measure and the Gospels
V. The Othello Music
VI. Brutus and Macbeth
VII. Macbeth and the Metaphysic of Evil
VIII. King Lear and the Comedy of the Grotesque
IX. The Lear Universe
X. The Pilgrimage of Fate: an Essay on Timon of Athens
XI. Shakespeare and Tolstoy
XII. Symbolic Personification
XIII. The Shakespearean Metaphysic
XIV. Tolstoy’s Attack on Shakespeare (1934)
XV. Hamlet Reconsidered (1947)
Recommended to anyone who’s interested enough in Shakespeare that they want to pursue the great interpreters of his plays. I found in my recent read that Knight’s essay gave me a whole raft of things to think about in Julius Caesar that I wouldn’t have realized on my own.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous review: The Soccer War
Next review: Smart Baseball
Older review: Tinker, Tailor,Soldier, Spy
Previous library review: Shakespearean Tragedy A.C. Bradley
Next library review: Pilgrim’s Progress
from Brutus and Macbeth
This is a book that I bought half a century ago (more actually) during my brief time as an English major in college. The old edition that I have has an Introduction by T.S. Eliot. I've read some of the essays in here, most recently the excellent "Brutus and Macbeth".
Here's a complete list of the book's chapters.
I. On the Principles of Shakespeare Interpretation.
II. The Embassy of Death: an Essay on Hamlet
III. The philosophy of Troilus and Cressida
IV. Measure for Measure and the Gospels
V. The Othello Music
VI. Brutus and Macbeth
VII. Macbeth and the Metaphysic of Evil
VIII. King Lear and the Comedy of the Grotesque
IX. The Lear Universe
X. The Pilgrimage of Fate: an Essay on Timon of Athens
XI. Shakespeare and Tolstoy
XII. Symbolic Personification
XIII. The Shakespearean Metaphysic
XIV. Tolstoy’s Attack on Shakespeare (1934)
XV. Hamlet Reconsidered (1947)
Recommended to anyone who’s interested enough in Shakespeare that they want to pursue the great interpreters of his plays. I found in my recent read that Knight’s essay gave me a whole raft of things to think about in Julius Caesar that I wouldn’t have realized on my own.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous review: The Soccer War
Next review: Smart Baseball
Older review: Tinker, Tailor,Soldier, Spy
Previous library review: Shakespearean Tragedy A.C. Bradley
Next library review: Pilgrim’s Progress
July 6, 2018
Together with Bradley's Shakespearian Tragedy, this is probably one of the most cited books on Shakespeare's plays. Knight has a more modern seeming approach; as he himself describes it, "We have not understood Shakespeare. And our error has been this: a concentration on 'character' and realistic appearances generally, things which do not constitute Shakespeare's primary glory; and a corresponding and dangerous, indeed a devastating, neglect of Shakespeare's poetic symbolism." In other words, he recognizes that Shakespeare was not, as nineteenth century criticism presented him, the great natural genius of realistic description, but a playwright who dealt in symbols and conventions to present his ideas.
The book consisted originally (1930) of 13 essays; two more essays and an appendix were added later, as well as some additional footnotes. The first essay gives his critical "theory" of how to interpret Shakespeare and is the most important; the second essay presents his view of Hamlet as essentially the villain rather than the hero of Hamlet; there are other essays on Hamlet, Troilus and Cressida, Measure for Measure, Othello, Macbeth, King Lear, and Timon of Athens, and two essays on Shakespeare and Tolstoy, including an answer to Tolstoy's attack on King Lear. Not all I would agree with, but all very interesting and giving a coherent approach to the works as a whole.
The book consisted originally (1930) of 13 essays; two more essays and an appendix were added later, as well as some additional footnotes. The first essay gives his critical "theory" of how to interpret Shakespeare and is the most important; the second essay presents his view of Hamlet as essentially the villain rather than the hero of Hamlet; there are other essays on Hamlet, Troilus and Cressida, Measure for Measure, Othello, Macbeth, King Lear, and Timon of Athens, and two essays on Shakespeare and Tolstoy, including an answer to Tolstoy's attack on King Lear. Not all I would agree with, but all very interesting and giving a coherent approach to the works as a whole.
August 10, 2016
Almost unreadable in the 21st century.
March 3, 2024
I bought this together with Bradley's 'Shakespearean Tragedy'. As compared with that, it has the advantage of being less school-textbook-ish, and WK at least realises that 'the pattern of the whole must be grasped before we can understand the significance of the parts'. That quote is taken from the chapter about Tolstoy's famous essay on King Lear, which seems to me to be the key part of the book. I think WK is right that Shakespeare had largely been praised for the wrong things - his characterisation and 'invention' (when he got most of his stories from other sources!) - and that this was what repelled Tolstoy (he misses, though, what Orwell later picked up, that Tolstoy may have been discomfited by the similarity of Lear to his own life; and also that there may have been an element of of professional jealousy in his criticism).
At least starting with Tolstoy seems to have stimulated WK to look for Shakespeare's essential nature as an artist and not, like Bradley, nit-pick over the details. You feel his passion for the plays, they are not just a set of specimens for him to dissect. He seems to understand that Shakespeare's greatness is not really as a dramatist at all - in fact many of the weaknesses of his work are attributable to his working in that medium - but as a poet, and that his work should be understood as poetry.
'To understand Shakespeare', he says, 'one must make this original acceptance: to believe, first, in people who speak poetry; thence in human actions which subserve a poetic purpose; and finally, in strange effects in nature which harmonise with the persons and their acts; the whole building a massive statement which, if accepted in its entirety, induces a profound experience in the reader or spectator'. In other words, first you must believe; then you will see. This is great, profound criticism; it explains the bafflement that every modern person in their degree, not just Tolstoy, feels on first encountering Shakespeare, how to work your way through it, and why it is worth doing so. If it were understood by educators, kids would have some chance of coming away from the study of Shakespeare enriched by it. Instead, it is generally presented as if it was just some kind of alien hieroglyphics which they need to decode in order to pass an exam, which serves no other purpose, and which their teachers hardly appreciate any better than they do; or at best, as something they ought to be able to relate to as naturally as an ep of Eastenders. To encourage and guide them, the kids have only whatever natural poetic instinct they may possess; and this the education system generally does its best to kill, with the constant study of issue- or autobiography-driven modern non-poets.
However, when WK tries to illustrate this theory in detail you realise that it is vitiated by two things. First, it doesn't always fit the facts. Not every component of every play contributes to 'building a massive statement'. It is most true of the greatest plays. Tolstoy's carping about King Lear was largely misplaced, yes; but the arbitrariness of Measure for Measure, for example, can't entirely be explained away by its overall moral meaning. It also owes something to a working dramatist's willingness to create a sensation by the use of cheap effects, and corresponding indifference to verisimilitude - we have to remember that, while Shakespeare may have been a great artist, he also had to pay the bills - and although it may be an ethical drama I don't think it is moral or religious in the highest sense. And the second thing is WK's disturbing inclination towards Nietzschean, almost quasi-fascist ideology (of course this was before the war gave fascism such a bad name): so that, as well as referring frequently to the 'superman', he can talk about a 'creative act of assassination' or say that 'we only progress through conflict' (by which he appears to mean war).
In any case, I can't go the last step of the way with those who claim Shakespeare to have been an essentially moral, religious or philosophical poet. I think people say this because they feel, given his obviously broad intelligence and sensitive spirit, that he *ought* to have been. In fact there are sufficient indications that he was sympathetic to Catholicism although, in the climate of the time, he probably didn't actively practice it. But his instinctive attitude to life, reflected in Measure for Measure as much as anywhere else, was neither religious nor rationalistic, but simply the average bloke's cynicism born of experience: life is a poor job but - having no alternative - we're well advised to make the best of it. It's something we can all relate to, but it's not inspiring. And perhaps this is why Shakespeare didn't produce any comedies (in which he would have had to offer some more positive vision of life's purpose) of the same stature of his great tragedies (in which it was enough to lament its horrors). It's why, contrary to what some claim, his plays - even together - do not add up to such a monumental achievement as Dante's Divine Comedy (as TS Eliot says, there is in Shakespeare more variety, more knowledge of life; but Dante is deeper and higher). But it's also why, as WK keeps telling us, his sensibility is very modern.
WK's own writing is not as smooth as Bradley's; I suppose he was in on the birth of academic-ese, with sentences like these:
'Yet as the rest of the passage vitiates even those, which asserted that there was nothing to be said about Arthur or Cordelia, the total resultant [not 'result'!] is one of sheer vacancy'.
...or note the pseudo-word 'subserve', above, instead of just 'serve'. But, not to fall prey to another of his faults, that of giving half a dozen unnecessary illustrations of a point complete with references, I'll stop ther
At least starting with Tolstoy seems to have stimulated WK to look for Shakespeare's essential nature as an artist and not, like Bradley, nit-pick over the details. You feel his passion for the plays, they are not just a set of specimens for him to dissect. He seems to understand that Shakespeare's greatness is not really as a dramatist at all - in fact many of the weaknesses of his work are attributable to his working in that medium - but as a poet, and that his work should be understood as poetry.
'To understand Shakespeare', he says, 'one must make this original acceptance: to believe, first, in people who speak poetry; thence in human actions which subserve a poetic purpose; and finally, in strange effects in nature which harmonise with the persons and their acts; the whole building a massive statement which, if accepted in its entirety, induces a profound experience in the reader or spectator'. In other words, first you must believe; then you will see. This is great, profound criticism; it explains the bafflement that every modern person in their degree, not just Tolstoy, feels on first encountering Shakespeare, how to work your way through it, and why it is worth doing so. If it were understood by educators, kids would have some chance of coming away from the study of Shakespeare enriched by it. Instead, it is generally presented as if it was just some kind of alien hieroglyphics which they need to decode in order to pass an exam, which serves no other purpose, and which their teachers hardly appreciate any better than they do; or at best, as something they ought to be able to relate to as naturally as an ep of Eastenders. To encourage and guide them, the kids have only whatever natural poetic instinct they may possess; and this the education system generally does its best to kill, with the constant study of issue- or autobiography-driven modern non-poets.
However, when WK tries to illustrate this theory in detail you realise that it is vitiated by two things. First, it doesn't always fit the facts. Not every component of every play contributes to 'building a massive statement'. It is most true of the greatest plays. Tolstoy's carping about King Lear was largely misplaced, yes; but the arbitrariness of Measure for Measure, for example, can't entirely be explained away by its overall moral meaning. It also owes something to a working dramatist's willingness to create a sensation by the use of cheap effects, and corresponding indifference to verisimilitude - we have to remember that, while Shakespeare may have been a great artist, he also had to pay the bills - and although it may be an ethical drama I don't think it is moral or religious in the highest sense. And the second thing is WK's disturbing inclination towards Nietzschean, almost quasi-fascist ideology (of course this was before the war gave fascism such a bad name): so that, as well as referring frequently to the 'superman', he can talk about a 'creative act of assassination' or say that 'we only progress through conflict' (by which he appears to mean war).
In any case, I can't go the last step of the way with those who claim Shakespeare to have been an essentially moral, religious or philosophical poet. I think people say this because they feel, given his obviously broad intelligence and sensitive spirit, that he *ought* to have been. In fact there are sufficient indications that he was sympathetic to Catholicism although, in the climate of the time, he probably didn't actively practice it. But his instinctive attitude to life, reflected in Measure for Measure as much as anywhere else, was neither religious nor rationalistic, but simply the average bloke's cynicism born of experience: life is a poor job but - having no alternative - we're well advised to make the best of it. It's something we can all relate to, but it's not inspiring. And perhaps this is why Shakespeare didn't produce any comedies (in which he would have had to offer some more positive vision of life's purpose) of the same stature of his great tragedies (in which it was enough to lament its horrors). It's why, contrary to what some claim, his plays - even together - do not add up to such a monumental achievement as Dante's Divine Comedy (as TS Eliot says, there is in Shakespeare more variety, more knowledge of life; but Dante is deeper and higher). But it's also why, as WK keeps telling us, his sensibility is very modern.
WK's own writing is not as smooth as Bradley's; I suppose he was in on the birth of academic-ese, with sentences like these:
'Yet as the rest of the passage vitiates even those, which asserted that there was nothing to be said about Arthur or Cordelia, the total resultant [not 'result'!] is one of sheer vacancy'.
...or note the pseudo-word 'subserve', above, instead of just 'serve'. But, not to fall prey to another of his faults, that of giving half a dozen unnecessary illustrations of a point complete with references, I'll stop ther
Read
December 31, 2023Classic, 30's-era Bardolotry. But good nonetheless. Lots of impermeable prose and circular reverence. Particularly enjoyed the 40-page chapter he spends fighting Tolstoy on why the latter's ill opinion of Shakespeare is not only wrong, but stupid. Oh, Wilson. Included the one essential about High Drama below because it took my breath away, but I wouldn't want you to slog through 400 pages to get to it.
Essential:
"Such drama will be not merely ethical, but metaphysical, too, often theocentric, always intensely symbolical. It must body forth in terms of human action and the varied melodies of speech the emotions that surge in man, the grief that wrings his soul, the joy that lights his laughter; and it must suggest the supernatural forces that prompt his little act, the purposes unseen which man serves alike with sun and star and weaving corn. It will rend the veil which shrouds the ultimate mysteries of birth and death, so the graves will wake their sleepers at its command. Persons both satanic and divine will inter-thread its story, the multitudinous seas sound their war in the tempests of its action, the wrath of its gods thunder from heaven to earth; while all eternities shall linger in its music."
Essential:
"Such drama will be not merely ethical, but metaphysical, too, often theocentric, always intensely symbolical. It must body forth in terms of human action and the varied melodies of speech the emotions that surge in man, the grief that wrings his soul, the joy that lights his laughter; and it must suggest the supernatural forces that prompt his little act, the purposes unseen which man serves alike with sun and star and weaving corn. It will rend the veil which shrouds the ultimate mysteries of birth and death, so the graves will wake their sleepers at its command. Persons both satanic and divine will inter-thread its story, the multitudinous seas sound their war in the tempests of its action, the wrath of its gods thunder from heaven to earth; while all eternities shall linger in its music."
December 15, 2024
Extremely idiosyncratic takes on Shakespeare, written with such whirling enthusiasm that it can be hard to maintain a grasp of the argument. Wilson Knight is dismissive of critical approaches that focus on character and intention (which cards on the table I'm amenable to), preferring to look at the symbolic significance of the plays and something that today might perhaps uncharitably be described as their general vibe. Most valuable for me were the readings of Measure for Measure and Trolius and Cressida, which the critical consensus interprets as satirical if not farcical in tone, but Wilson Knight takes more seriously. I thought it was impossible to see Duke Vincentio as a hero, but Wilson Knight shows that there can be positive readings of the character, showing in turn how Shakespeare's skill in balancing perspectives is evident even in plays that today's readers are liable to only interpret in a certain direction.
October 27, 2022
Every chapter is a transformative analysis of a Shakespeare play. The book is illuminated gold, written in fire.
King Lear on suffering:
"You do me wrong to take me out o' the grave:
Thou art a soul in bliss; but I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like molten lead."
King Lear on whether morality can be found in nature:
"Thou shalt not die: die for adultery! No!
The wren goes to't, and the small gilded fly
Does lecher in my sight.
...
The fitchew [polecat] nor the soiled horse goes to't
With a more riotous appetite."
Knight:
"The deep instinctive currents hold their old course, in earth, beast, and man. Man's morality, his idealism, his justice -- all are false."
King Lear on suffering:
"You do me wrong to take me out o' the grave:
Thou art a soul in bliss; but I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like molten lead."
King Lear on whether morality can be found in nature:
"Thou shalt not die: die for adultery! No!
The wren goes to't, and the small gilded fly
Does lecher in my sight.
...
The fitchew [polecat] nor the soiled horse goes to't
With a more riotous appetite."
Knight:
"The deep instinctive currents hold their old course, in earth, beast, and man. Man's morality, his idealism, his justice -- all are false."
July 1, 2022
Acquired 1995
The Word, Montreal, Quebec
The Word, Montreal, Quebec
October 3, 2019
Lately, I've been reading lot of essays on books I've read but unfortunatly Goodreads does not have 'single-essays' on its shelves. So, I add these books but also comment on them which parts I got the chance to read. In this case, I've only read the The Othello Music by Wilson Knight. As guessed it was a study of Othello and the understanding its lines and ideals through the writing, placing words and comparing it to the other Shakespear works such as Macbeth, King Lear, and so. Wilson Knight states that Shakespear uses a different tone on his highly argued work Othello. I really loved the way he explains the little details that matter, that must be understood. Othello is a unique work of art, which argues the human and its behaviors on conditions like chaos. Wilson Knight shows how dramatic language shapes the chaos through the play and how it works.
March 29, 2025
This book is a heartfelt rendering of the Shakespearean drama. In the style of a poetic analysis, combining smile and metaphor, Wilson Knight brings the Shakespearean drama directly to our mental doorstep. What a love and sincere appreciation Knight shares with his readers! He elevates the prose of Shakespeare to new spiritual heights of enjoyment. Whether describing the acts of terror and intrigue or simply commenting on the disharmony of the soul corrupted by ambition, greed, vanity, or revenge, we are immersed in the cataclysmic, the profane, and the foolishness at the heart and soul of what we call the “Shakespearean Drama”.
Currently reading
February 28, 2020Unable to read the book in your app
November 13, 2023
For stuff on Hamlet and Timon!
May 12, 2024
Definitely expanded my understanding and appreciation of the texts discussed but not to be read in one sitting (if that’s even possible)
Read
June 14, 2024The Othello's Music section is awesome...
April 23, 2011
heh...i cited this work in a paper i wrote about measure for measure...so i read parts of it, if not all...
concerning measure for measure, the duke's conflict is precipitated by the influence Christianity has had on western civilization....measure for measure is "a studied explication of a central theme: the moral nature of man in relation to the crudity of man's justice...the play's theme is this:
Judge not, that ye be not judged
for with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you
again...matthew vii i
ummmm. i was trying hard, at the time, and this work, from 1930 must have helped...
concerning measure for measure, the duke's conflict is precipitated by the influence Christianity has had on western civilization....measure for measure is "a studied explication of a central theme: the moral nature of man in relation to the crudity of man's justice...the play's theme is this:
Judge not, that ye be not judged
for with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you
again...matthew vii i
ummmm. i was trying hard, at the time, and this work, from 1930 must have helped...
November 21, 2015
A fascinating read. Contains essays on the four great tragedies plus "Troilus and Cressida," "Measure for Measure," and "Timon of Athens." These are written in classic essay form. The author admits that "The influence of A. C. Bradley will be apparent."(p. 161). Personal favorites: Quote: "The grandeur and essential optimisms of true Shakespearian tragedy is due to these two elements: passion and death." (p. 279). Essays: "Brutus and Macbeth" and "Hamlet Reconsidered." All in all, "Wheel of Fire" is highly recommended.
Addendum: I am adding "The 'Lear' Universe" to my list. After reading it, I was moved to see the play.
Addendum: I am adding "The 'Lear' Universe" to my list. After reading it, I was moved to see the play.
April 23, 2013
What a glorious writer. I read this for my exam list, but I was surprised at how well Knight wrights. It was so good, it was a guilty pleasure.
I did not buy this book through Amazon.
I strongly recommend this work because Wilson is able to offer a reading of many Shakespeare plays that transcends the limitations we sometimes find ourselves facing. While we might not be able to write as he does about Shakespeare now, we can consider many of his insights into the plays as groundwork for further explorations.
NB: New critical reading.
I did not buy this book through Amazon.
I strongly recommend this work because Wilson is able to offer a reading of many Shakespeare plays that transcends the limitations we sometimes find ourselves facing. While we might not be able to write as he does about Shakespeare now, we can consider many of his insights into the plays as groundwork for further explorations.
NB: New critical reading.
August 10, 2008
This is where all the seriously wrong ideas came from
July 18, 2009
Some very interesting interpretations of Shakespeare.
October 20, 2011
test on QA2 on 20 Oct 2011
April 30, 2016
Knight writes literary theory like it's poetry.
Read
April 20, 2019good
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews