Advertisement

Reading Incoherence: How Shakespeare Speaks Back to Cognitive Science

  • Nicholas R. Helms
Chapter
Part of the Cognitive Studies in Literature and Performance book series (CSLP)

Abstract

Helms argues that Shakespeare’s plays enable a balance of inference and imagination that lets readers contemplate states of mind outside the neurotypical realm of experience, such as early modern madness. Contemporary cognitive science has shown difficulty conceptualizing non-normative modes of thought, particularly those the field classifies as “empathy deficit disorders,” such as autism, psychopathy, and sociopathy. While theories of mindreading can break down in the face of such modes of thought, Shakespeare deliberately pursues such difficult cases of mindreading. Fletcher and Shakespeare’s The Two Noble Kinsmen depicts the mad as opaque to society, inaccessible to inference or imagination alone. Incoherence operates similarly in King Lear, a play where Shakespeare omits explicit motivations for his characters’ actions, crafting easily misread minds that catalyze his play’s conflicts and moral dilemmas.

Bibliography

  1. Anon. The True Chronicle Historie of King Leir. 1605. In Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, vol. VII, edited by Geoffrey Bullough, 337–402. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. Apperly, Ian. Mindreaders: The Cognitive Basis of “Theory of Mind. New York: Psychology Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle. Aristotles Politiques, or Discourses of Gouernment. London: Early English Books Online, 1598.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, Theodore. “Structure-Mapping: Directions from Simulation to Theory.” Philosophical Psychology 24, no. 1 (February 2011): 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron-Cohen, Simon. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. ———. The Essential Difference: Male and Female Brains and the Truth About Autism. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. Bristol, Michael. “Introduction: Is Shakespeare a Moral Philosopher?” In Shakespeare and Moral Agency, edited by Michael Bristol, 1–12. New York: Continuum, 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Burton, Robert. The Anatomy of Melancholy vvhat it is. With all the Kindes, Causes, Symptomes, Prognostickes, and Seuerall Cures of it. In Three Maine Partitions with Their Seuerall Sections, Members, and Subsections. Philosophically, Medicinally, Historically, Opened and Cut vp. By Democritus Iunior. With a Satyricall Preface, Conducing to the Following Discourse. 2nd ed. Oxford: Early English Books Online, 1621.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, Amy. “Staging Nothing: Hamlet and Cognitive Science.” Substance 35, no. 2 (2006): 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. “For Hecuba or for Hamlet: Rethinking Emotion and Empathy in the Theatre.” Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 25, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, David. Aesthetics and Literature. London: Continuum, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. In The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. vol. 2, translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, 1–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. Dodd, William. “Impossible Worlds: What Happens in King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1?” Shakespeare Quarterly 50, no. 4 (Winter, 1999): 477–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doherty, Martin J. Theory of Mind: How Children Understand Others’ Thoughts and Feelings. New York: Psychology Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  15. Fahmi, Mustapha. “Quoting the Enemy: Character, Self-Interpretation, and the Question of Perspective in Shakespeare.” In Shakespeare and Moral Agency, edited by Michael Bristol, 129–41. New York: Continuum, 2010.Google Scholar
  16. Fletcher, John, and William Shakespeare. Two Noble Kinsmen. Edited by Lois Potter. London: Arden Shakespeare, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Translated by Richard Howard. New York: Vintage Books, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. Goldman, Alvin I. Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  19. ———. Joint Ventures: Mindreading, Mirroring, and Embodied Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  20. Gordon, Robert M. “Folk Psychology as Simulation.” Mind and Language 1 (1986): 158–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grandin, T. “Standing in His Shoes; Review: The Reason I Jump: The Inner Voice of a Thirteen-Year-Old Boy with Autism.” Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science (February 2014).Google Scholar
  22. Hadfield, Andrew. “The Power and Rights of the Crown in Hamlet and King Lear: ‘The King: The King’s to Blame.’” The Review of English Studies, New Series, 54, no. 217 (November 2003): 566–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Higashida, Naoki. The Reason I Jump: The Inner Voice of a Thirteen-Year-Old Boy with Autism. Translated by K.A. Yoshida and David Mitchell. New York: Random House, 2013.Google Scholar
  24. Hogan, Patrick Colm. Cognitive Science, Literature, and the Arts: A Guide for Humanism. New York: Routledge, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holland, Norman. Literature and the Brain. Gainesville: PsyArt Foundation, 2009.Google Scholar
  26. Hutto, Daniel D. Folk Psychological Narratives: The Sociocultural Basis of Understanding Reasons. London: MIT Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Jamison, Leslie. The Empathy Exams. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press, 2014.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, Samuel. “The Preface to Shakespeare.” In The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume C: The Restoration and the Eighteenth Century, edited by Stephen Greenblatt, 906–16. New York: Norton, 2018.Google Scholar
  29. Kelly, Philippa. “See What Breeds about Her Heart: King Lear, Feminism, and Performance.” Renaissance Drama, New Series, 33 (2004): 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kott, Jan. Shakespeare Our Contemporary. Translated by Boleslaw Taborski. London: Norton, 1974.Google Scholar
  31. Lamb, Charles. “On the Tragedies of Shakespeare.” In A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on William Shakespeare’s King Lear, edited by Grace Ioppolo, 50–1. London: Routledge, 2003.Google Scholar
  32. Loftis, Sonya Freeman. Imagining Autism: Fiction and Stereotypes on the Spectrum. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
  33. Lurz, Robert W. Mindreading Animals: The Debate Over What Animals Know About Other Minds. MIT Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  34. Markram, Kamila, and Henry Markram, “The Intense World Theory—A Unifying Theory of the Neurobiology of Autism.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 4 (2010): article 224, 1–29.Google Scholar
  35. Marlowe, Christopher. Doctor Faustus. In The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume B: The Sixteenth Century and the Early Seventeenth Century, edited by Stephen Greenblatt, 679–717. New York: Norton, 2018.Google Scholar
  36. McConachie, Bruce. Engaging Audiences: A Cognitive Approach to Spectating in the Theatre. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.Google Scholar
  37. McEachern, Claire. “Figures of Fidelity: Believing in King Lear.” Modern Philology 98, no. 2, Religion, Gender, and the Writing of Women: Historicist Essays in Honor of Janel Mueller (November 2000): 211–230.Google Scholar
  38. Milton, John. Paradise Lost. In The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume B: The Sixteenth Century and the Early Seventeenth Century, edited by Stephen Greenblatt, 1493–1727. New York: Norton, 2018.Google Scholar
  39. Neaman, Judith S. Suggestion of the Devil: The Origins of Madness. New York: Anchor Books, 1975.Google Scholar
  40. Neely, Carol Thomas. Distracted Subjects: Madness and Gender in Shakespeare and Early Modern Culture. London: Cornell University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  41. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Last Modified June 2018.Google Scholar
  42. Paster, Gail Kern. The Body Embarrassed: Drama and the Disciplines of Shame in Early Modern England. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  43. Pierce, Robert B. “‘I Stumbled When I Saw’: Interpreting Gloucester’s Blindness in King Lear.” Philosophy and Literature 36 (2012): 153–65.Google Scholar
  44. Pius Secundus Pontifex Maximus. Memoirs of a Renaissance Pope: The Commentaries of Pius II, Books VI–IX. Translated by Florence Alden Gragg, Smith College Studies in History (Massachusetts), xxxv (1951), IV, 413–618.Google Scholar
  45. Potter, Ursula. “Navigating the Dangers of Female Puberty in Renaissance Drama.” SEL Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 53, no. 2 (Spring 2013), 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raber, Karen. Animal Bodies, Renaissance Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  47. Schleiner, Winfried. Medical Ethics in the Renaissance. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  48. ———. King Lear. Edited by R.A. Foakes. Surrey: Arden Shakespeare, 1997a.Google Scholar
  49. ———. Othello. Edited by E.A.J. Honigmann. London: Arden Shakespeare, 1997b.Google Scholar
  50. ———. As You Like It. Edited by Juliet Dusinberre. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2006.Google Scholar
  51. ———. Hamlet. Edited by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2007.Google Scholar
  52. ———. The Tempest. Edited by Virginia Mason Vaughan and Alden T. Vaughan. London: Arden Shakespeare, 1999. Revised 2011.Google Scholar
  53. Shakespeare, Wiliam. Twelfth Night, or What You Will. Edited by Keir Elam. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2008.Google Scholar
  54. Shannon, Laurie. “Poor, Bare, Forked: Animal Sovereignty, Human Negative Exceptionalism, and the Natural History of King Lear.” Shakespeare Quarterly 60, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 168–196.Google Scholar
  55. Speak, Gill. “An Odd Kind of Melancholy: Reflections on the Glass Delusion in Europe (1440–1680).” History of Psychiatry 1 (1990): 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stueber, Karsten. Rediscovering Empathy: Agency, Folk Psychology, and the Human Sciences. London: MIT Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tomkis, Thomas. Lingua: Or the Combat of the Tongue, and the Fiue Senses for Superiority A Pleasant Comoedie. London: Early English Books Online, 1607.Google Scholar
  58. Wai, Michael, and Niko Tiliopoulos “The Affective and Cognitive Empathic Nature of the Dark Triad of Personality.” Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012): 794–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wittreich, Joseph. “An Image of that Horror”: History, Prophecy, and Apocalypse in King Lear. San Marino: Huntington Library, 1984.Google Scholar
  60. Wolfe, Cary. What is Posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas R. Helms
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations