What do you think?
Rate this book
Shakespeare's Politics
Taking the classical view that the political shapes man's consciousness, Allan Bloom considers Shakespeare as a profoundly political Renaissance dramatist. He aims to recover Shakespeare's ideas and beliefs and to make his work once again a recognized source for the serious study of moral and political problems.
In essays looking at Julius Caesar, Othello, and The Merchant of Venice, Bloom shows how Shakespeare presents a picture of man that does not assume privileged access for only literary criticism. With this claim, he argues that political philosophy offers a comprehensive framework within which the problems of the Shakespearean heroes can be viewed. In short, he argues that Shakespeare was an eminently political author. Also included is an essay by Harry V. Jaffa on the limits of politics in King Lear.
"A very good book indeed . . . one which can be recommended to all who are interested in Shakespeare." —G. P. V. Akrigg
"This series of essays reminded me of the scope and depth of Shakespeare's original vision. One is left with the impression that Shakespeare really had figured out the answers to some important questions many of us no longer even know to ask."-Peter A. Thiel, CEO, PayPal, Wall Street Journal
Allan Bloom was the John U. Nef Distinguished Service Professor on the Committee on Social Thought and the co-director of the John M. Olin Center for Inquiry into the Theory and Practice of Democracy at the University of Chicago. Harry V. Jaffa is professor emeritus at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate School.
In essays looking at Julius Caesar, Othello, and The Merchant of Venice, Bloom shows how Shakespeare presents a picture of man that does not assume privileged access for only literary criticism. With this claim, he argues that political philosophy offers a comprehensive framework within which the problems of the Shakespearean heroes can be viewed. In short, he argues that Shakespeare was an eminently political author. Also included is an essay by Harry V. Jaffa on the limits of politics in King Lear.
"A very good book indeed . . . one which can be recommended to all who are interested in Shakespeare." —G. P. V. Akrigg
"This series of essays reminded me of the scope and depth of Shakespeare's original vision. One is left with the impression that Shakespeare really had figured out the answers to some important questions many of us no longer even know to ask."-Peter A. Thiel, CEO, PayPal, Wall Street Journal
Allan Bloom was the John U. Nef Distinguished Service Professor on the Committee on Social Thought and the co-director of the John M. Olin Center for Inquiry into the Theory and Practice of Democracy at the University of Chicago. Harry V. Jaffa is professor emeritus at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate School.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1964
5 people are currently reading
398 people want to read
About the author
Allan Bloom
40 books199 followersAllan David Bloom was an American philosopher, essayist and academic. Bloom championed the idea of 'Great Books' education, as did his mentor Leo Strauss. Bloom became famous for his criticism of contemporary American higher education, with his views being expressed in his bestselling 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
July 24, 2015
The most incisive series of essays I've ever read on Shakespeare. I will never read King Lear the same way after reading Jaffa's explanation of Scene I, Lear's plan, and the love test. These authors understand human nature, and have admirably refined and enlarged my understanding of Shakespeare's politics.
April 30, 2020
Some really interesting perspectives on Shakespeare's plays. I was particularly struck by Bloom's interpretation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Bl0om, strikingly, begins section 4 with, "Julius Caesar is the story of how a man became a god". He goes on to explain how, in republican Rome, someone could strive to greatness in a somewhat balanced political environment between the senatorial class and the plebs. Once a noble was ready to disavowed his class and reached for power from the masses, the system fractured. Once someone had absolute power (checks and balances having been destroyed) the only thing left was divinity.
While most of the book (really a series of essays) was written by Allen Bloom, the last section is Harry Jaffa's. Jaffa provides an in-depth analysis of the opening to King Lear. Although I thought Jaffa presupposed too much, I was very appreciative of his insights into the reasoning behind Lear's division of the kingdom in Act 1. He gave me ways to think about Lear I hadn't considered - namely a sovereign attempting to strategically maintain the kingdom he had unified while remaining in power. The proposed division into three parts, one section per daughter, was more than a bequest to children; it was a strategy to influence the course of England when Lear would die. The love test wasn't an act by a doddering egotistical geriatric; it was part of an intricate strategy of preservation. At least that is what Jaffa give's us to think about.
While most of the book (really a series of essays) was written by Allen Bloom, the last section is Harry Jaffa's. Jaffa provides an in-depth analysis of the opening to King Lear. Although I thought Jaffa presupposed too much, I was very appreciative of his insights into the reasoning behind Lear's division of the kingdom in Act 1. He gave me ways to think about Lear I hadn't considered - namely a sovereign attempting to strategically maintain the kingdom he had unified while remaining in power. The proposed division into three parts, one section per daughter, was more than a bequest to children; it was a strategy to influence the course of England when Lear would die. The love test wasn't an act by a doddering egotistical geriatric; it was part of an intricate strategy of preservation. At least that is what Jaffa give's us to think about.
April 18, 2020
One of the joys of quarantine reading is getting in touch with classics that one has read a long time ago but not had the chance to read in recent years, and this book certainly qualifies on that front. This book is a thoughtful work that is definitely enjoyable even if reading it provides some questions about the book and its approach that one did not always have going into it. Allan Bloom is generally an enjoyable read and Harry Jaffa always is, and this book is a reminder of the struggle that contemporary readers have in understanding Shakespeare on his own terms and in recognizing his deep interest in politics and in doing it well. As Bloom is frequently insightful when it comes to cultural politics and Jaffa is on point as far as political philosophy is concerned, this book is a solid volume. One only wishes that this book had been longer or that there would have been multiple volumes so one could have read essays on Timon of Athens or Measure For Measure or the politics of the Tempest or something of that nature. Alas, it wasn't to be. Still, this is well worth enjoying even if it is very brief.
This book is a short one at about 150 pages or so. The introduction looks at the relationship between poetry and political philosophy by appealing to an older view in which these two were not seen as being in opposition to each other (1). After that the author talks about the troubled relationship between Christian and Jew in the Merchant of Venice and how Shakespeare deals sympathetically with both sides (2) and the tragedy of the political outsider and the problems in being a cosmopolitan man in Othello (3). After that the author discusses the morality of the pagan hero by showing how difficult it was for Rome to maintain its Republic in the face of a populist leader, something that republics in general tend to struggle with, not least our own (4). Finally, the author discusses King Lear's first scene as a look at the limits of politics and show how complicated and multivalent the love test is in showing Lear as a successful king but one who finds it unable to achieve what he wants and also provides a darker realpolitik to the behavior of Cordelia (5). After that the book ends with acknowledgements and an index.
In reading this book I got a series of melancholy feelings. For one, the authors themselves both appear to be of the school of the old heathen philosophers, in that they wish to defend virtue but from a philosophical perspective and not from a biblical perspective, and they openly favor Athens over Jerusalem instead of the reverse. Besides the gloominess of the author's philosophical paganism, this book has a lot of melancholy reflections on the failure of secular regimes to paper over the intense worldview conflicts between the people who live with them, as the look at the two Venetian plays points out the tragedy of the outsider even in the cosmopolitan regime. If the authors are more sympathetic to Iago than most people are, it is rather telling that they also manage to be deeply sympathetic to Shylock even if he is not easy for others to relate to. If Shakespeare does not come off as a world genius, he certainly shows himself as a wary student of power because the authors do a good job at demonstrating how Shakespeare's political insights allow him to use foreign locations as a way of speaking important truths that would be impolitic to do if everything was set in England.
This book is a short one at about 150 pages or so. The introduction looks at the relationship between poetry and political philosophy by appealing to an older view in which these two were not seen as being in opposition to each other (1). After that the author talks about the troubled relationship between Christian and Jew in the Merchant of Venice and how Shakespeare deals sympathetically with both sides (2) and the tragedy of the political outsider and the problems in being a cosmopolitan man in Othello (3). After that the author discusses the morality of the pagan hero by showing how difficult it was for Rome to maintain its Republic in the face of a populist leader, something that republics in general tend to struggle with, not least our own (4). Finally, the author discusses King Lear's first scene as a look at the limits of politics and show how complicated and multivalent the love test is in showing Lear as a successful king but one who finds it unable to achieve what he wants and also provides a darker realpolitik to the behavior of Cordelia (5). After that the book ends with acknowledgements and an index.
In reading this book I got a series of melancholy feelings. For one, the authors themselves both appear to be of the school of the old heathen philosophers, in that they wish to defend virtue but from a philosophical perspective and not from a biblical perspective, and they openly favor Athens over Jerusalem instead of the reverse. Besides the gloominess of the author's philosophical paganism, this book has a lot of melancholy reflections on the failure of secular regimes to paper over the intense worldview conflicts between the people who live with them, as the look at the two Venetian plays points out the tragedy of the outsider even in the cosmopolitan regime. If the authors are more sympathetic to Iago than most people are, it is rather telling that they also manage to be deeply sympathetic to Shylock even if he is not easy for others to relate to. If Shakespeare does not come off as a world genius, he certainly shows himself as a wary student of power because the authors do a good job at demonstrating how Shakespeare's political insights allow him to use foreign locations as a way of speaking important truths that would be impolitic to do if everything was set in England.
August 6, 2018
While many study Shakespeare for literature or theatre, Bloom and Jaffa try to discover Shakespeare for political insights. The authors' study of The Merchant of Venice and Othello both give readers an understanding of an outsider's role in a community while Julius Caesar and King Learn demonstrate that political power at the top is more tenuous than it many times appears.
Othello is an accepted member of Venice and is even a hero of sorts, but co-existence isn't full citizenship argue Bloom and Jaffa. Citizenship in a homogenous society requires that one adhere to the same customs and even have the same background. Othello may be a hero, but he's still an outsider. Iago uses this insecurity to convince Othello that his wife is unfaithful. Bloom and Jaffa certainly consider Othello a tragic figure of sorts, but he's one largely of his own making. If Othello were to realize that he's incapable of being accepted totally in such a closed society he would have made better choices himself. This would have kept him from making an enemy of the envious Iago.
Bloom and Jaffa also have a different take on the question of King Lear. They think the most important political message occurs in the very first scene of the very first act. While many consider Lear's idea of dividing his kingdom among his daughters the evidence of a foolish old man, the authors argue that Lear was a great king and only a great king could be guilty of such a terrible mistake. No English King in Shakespeare's writing was able to unite the whole British empire. Shakespeare made this point up front so that you would realize what a great man King Lear is when the play opens. It's important that Lear be seen as great not foolish, because when a great king makes the biggest mistake, the tragedy is all the more sorrowful.
You might not agree with every premise or conclusion in this book, but you'll certainly get to weigh the new ideas versus your own. The result should be a better understanding of the Bard as a political animal. The book has sure given me a new outlook on these characters.
Othello is an accepted member of Venice and is even a hero of sorts, but co-existence isn't full citizenship argue Bloom and Jaffa. Citizenship in a homogenous society requires that one adhere to the same customs and even have the same background. Othello may be a hero, but he's still an outsider. Iago uses this insecurity to convince Othello that his wife is unfaithful. Bloom and Jaffa certainly consider Othello a tragic figure of sorts, but he's one largely of his own making. If Othello were to realize that he's incapable of being accepted totally in such a closed society he would have made better choices himself. This would have kept him from making an enemy of the envious Iago.
Bloom and Jaffa also have a different take on the question of King Lear. They think the most important political message occurs in the very first scene of the very first act. While many consider Lear's idea of dividing his kingdom among his daughters the evidence of a foolish old man, the authors argue that Lear was a great king and only a great king could be guilty of such a terrible mistake. No English King in Shakespeare's writing was able to unite the whole British empire. Shakespeare made this point up front so that you would realize what a great man King Lear is when the play opens. It's important that Lear be seen as great not foolish, because when a great king makes the biggest mistake, the tragedy is all the more sorrowful.
You might not agree with every premise or conclusion in this book, but you'll certainly get to weigh the new ideas versus your own. The result should be a better understanding of the Bard as a political animal. The book has sure given me a new outlook on these characters.
April 17, 2020
Bloom has insight into the deepest aspects of humanity. And once again Bloom inspires by penetrating our perpetual present with the permanent and universal. This time he performs that magic through analysis of Shakespeare’s plays, their political message, and Shakespeare’s grasp of what makes us who we are.
Shakespeare’s plays deal with fragile balances of humanity as individuals and as associations with their impossible reconciliations between competing concepts and ideals, which is what both are made of. Like the Jewish and Christian in Venice, their conflicts between what matters most while still members of the same society, which though peaceful and prosperous engages in the simplification of man; the strength and weakness of men in love; the root of tragedy suffered by the hero precisely due to his heroic strengths. Shakespeare acts on so many levels it’s hard to fathom anyone could grasp it all without an escort.
As always, Bloom’s revels in his love of books, disappointed at modernity’s dismissal of them for other pleasures or mindless pursuits. We do not, he writes, “look at all to books when [we] meet problems in life or think about [our] goals; there are no literary models for [our] conceptions of virtue and vise.” Reflecting, “the decay of common understanding of – and agreement on – first principles that is characteristic of our times.” Resulting in a “decided lowering of tone in [our] reflections on life and its goals.” Thus we are “technically well equipped, but Philistine.” But Shakespeare provides an opportunity to see out of this, as do other great authors Bloom was so taken by and wrote about.
Shakespeare’s plays deal with fragile balances of humanity as individuals and as associations with their impossible reconciliations between competing concepts and ideals, which is what both are made of. Like the Jewish and Christian in Venice, their conflicts between what matters most while still members of the same society, which though peaceful and prosperous engages in the simplification of man; the strength and weakness of men in love; the root of tragedy suffered by the hero precisely due to his heroic strengths. Shakespeare acts on so many levels it’s hard to fathom anyone could grasp it all without an escort.
As always, Bloom’s revels in his love of books, disappointed at modernity’s dismissal of them for other pleasures or mindless pursuits. We do not, he writes, “look at all to books when [we] meet problems in life or think about [our] goals; there are no literary models for [our] conceptions of virtue and vise.” Reflecting, “the decay of common understanding of – and agreement on – first principles that is characteristic of our times.” Resulting in a “decided lowering of tone in [our] reflections on life and its goals.” Thus we are “technically well equipped, but Philistine.” But Shakespeare provides an opportunity to see out of this, as do other great authors Bloom was so taken by and wrote about.
August 2, 2015
The book is short and engaging. The basic premise is surely right, that we should be looking for what Shakespeare has to say about politics and society. He was writing in an intensely political milieu, and his audience included senior statesmen. Moreover, he was writing in an era where it was assumed that reflecting on society and politics was one of the highest purposes of poetry and drama.
Rather than an encyclopedic or comprehensive view of Shakespeare, this book examines just four works: The Merchant of Venice, Othello, Julius Caesar, and King Lear. I thought the authors had sensible things to say about all of them. I had never noticed how much Julius Caesar is about Stoicism and Epicureanism -- we are explicitly told that Brutus is the former, and Cassius the latter; the contrasts between them cannot be accidental.
The authors do sometimes give in to windy bardolotry. They engage in hyperbole like "Shakeaspeare is the greatest poet that ever was, Lear is his greatest tragedy, and therefore it must follow that the character of Lear has the largest decline from greatness of any literary character ever."
Rather than an encyclopedic or comprehensive view of Shakespeare, this book examines just four works: The Merchant of Venice, Othello, Julius Caesar, and King Lear. I thought the authors had sensible things to say about all of them. I had never noticed how much Julius Caesar is about Stoicism and Epicureanism -- we are explicitly told that Brutus is the former, and Cassius the latter; the contrasts between them cannot be accidental.
The authors do sometimes give in to windy bardolotry. They engage in hyperbole like "Shakeaspeare is the greatest poet that ever was, Lear is his greatest tragedy, and therefore it must follow that the character of Lear has the largest decline from greatness of any literary character ever."
June 19, 2008
Bloom (Alan, not Harold) changed how I read the Merchant of Venice. Commerce transcends ethnic differences at a level. But music and romance offer transcendence of a different order. And the tacked-on legal drama that purports to fix everything is played for laughs. (As it should be!) And Shylock. Who knows how he played four hundred years ago. Today, to me, he exemplifies something truly remarkable about WS: Shylock is an absurd racial bogeyman melodrama villain. And yet he is heartbreakingly human.
March 19, 2015
Allan Bloom gives me a deeper understanding of the moral and political nature of Shakespeare's plays. For years I watched or read the plays for the entertainment value. After reading "Shakespeare's Politics" I watch or read them to understand the moral and political philosophy of Shakespeare. We all knew Shakespeare was a great writer and dramatist, but who knew he was also a great moral and political philosopher?
I find myself going back to this book and re-reading all or parts of it just to see what I might have missed in previous readings. It's that good!
I find myself going back to this book and re-reading all or parts of it just to see what I might have missed in previous readings. It's that good!
Want to read
November 12, 2009Recommended by James Schall in Another Sort of Learning, Chapter 8, as one of Seven Books on the Limits of Politics.
Read
June 15, 2017施派東西岸派代表的合作！
August 6, 2019
谈凯撒和李尔的两篇颇有启发
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews