Shakespeare and Politics: Prodigal Son or Machiavellian "Prince"

By Jack Fitzhenry

Part of what keeps Shakespeare in modern classrooms is not his saintly status, but that quality of his work which seems to withhold something from the reader, yielding it up only when new modes of interpretation become available. Shakespeare is timeless precisely because his work can respond to new schools of criticism and thought, thus providing something unique for successive generations of scholars. It is important to note that Shakespeare is not just for the english nerds but can be appreciated by a variety of disciplines should they be sensitive to its virtues.  Not least among these are political scientists and historians, and this is of course especially true for his historic plays.  Shakespeare is as adept a political and social commentator as any modern incarnation, a David Brooks, Paul Krugman, et al.

Moby "Dick"?

by Nate Barker

The other day in an English class of mine we were discussing Moby Dick, focusing in on a certain passage concerning the homoerotic overtones of a relationship between two characters (Ishmael and Queequeg for those of you familiar with Melville's work). As he is wont to do, the professor turned to me suddenly and asked me for my impressions of the short passage, saying something along the lines of "Do you think this passage is supposed to be sexual?".

A Slipping Mask of Sanity

By Andrew Nguyen

As a lover of Shakespeare's work, I have to wonder what Shakespeare might have to say about the recent Supreme Court hearings on the new healthcare laws, if he were alive today. Arguably, quite a lot.

I am thinking of the scene in King Lear where Lear stands on the heath and recognizes the "poor naked wretches" that must "bide the pelting of this pitiless storm." As King, he is ostensibly obligated to provide justice to the people, to "show the heavens more just." Yet, Lear recognizes on the heath that he may "have ta'en / Too little care of this." Of course, Lear only comes to this recognition when he is completely stripped of his power as king, when he has no power of law and in fact stands outside the realm of law. This makes me think about the ability of law–and of those with the power to enact law–to provide any meaningful sense of justice. One of the interesting aspects about the healthcare hearings is that supporters and opponents alike are trying to use the law (the Constitution) to uphold or denounce the law (the healthcare bill). But does law actually provide justice? Or is it only in the absence of law, in the absence of power to exercise any true conception of justice, that justice can be realized?