This is the latest in a series I am cross-posting from my new Substack called Think Shakespeare. Details here.
***
Socrates: Tell me, Cratylus, what is the meaning of the work of Shakespeare that is called “Macbeth”?
Cratylus: I’ve never heard of such a thing, Socrates. Who is Shakespeare?
Socrates: He’s the playwright who will appear in the land they call England two millennia after our time.
Cratylus: How could I know about something that is going to happen two millennia from now, Socrates?
Socrates: Come now, Cratylus. Never mind about all that. Just tell me what you think the meaning of Macbeth is.
Cratylus: Well, I think it’s about fate. And also about ambition. At least, that’s what I learned in school.
Socrates: You went to school, Cratylus?
Cratylus: Yes, and university too.
Socrates: You must be terribly smart. But tell me, Cratylus, if the story is about fate, why didn’t this Shakespeare fellow call it “Fate”?
Cratylus: I don’t understand the question, Socrates. Must every book be named after its subject matter? After all, Plato named his works after the characters that were in them. In fact, there’s one with my name on it.
Socrates: Indeed, there is a dialogue called “Cratylus”. Is it about you?
Cratylus: No, it’s about the subject of human language. So, you see, even though Shakespeare named his story “Macbeth”, it’s really about ambition and fate.
Socrates: Tell me, Cratylus, do any of the characters in Shakespeare’s story talk about ambition or fate?
Cratylus: Not directly, no.
Socrates: But a Platonic dialogue consists of talking about a particular subject and trying to arrive at a truth about it. What does Shakespeare show us in his work?
Cratylus: He shows us an imitation of real life.
Socrates: And his characters don’t talk about subjects the way we do in a Platonic dialogue?
Cratylus: No, they don’t.
Socrates: That’s why I say Shakespeare’s work called “Macbeth” is about Macbeth, while Plato’s dialogue called “Cratylus” is about the subject of human language.
Cratylus: Aren’t we splitting hairs here, Socrates? A story or a dialogue includes characters and topics. They are not mutually exclusive.
Socrates: It may seem like a small difference, my dear Cratylus, but it makes all the difference. Tell me, the Platonic dialogue that has your name on it, it’s not really about you, is it?
Cratylus: No. As I just said, it’s about the topic of human language.
Socrates: I mean, Plato could have swapped you for any other person and the meaning of the dialogue would not change one iota, isn’t that right?
Cratylus: Perhaps. But this Shakespeare fellow could have swapped Macbeth for any other character, too. Hamlet, for example.
Socrates: Absolutely not, Cratylus. Hamlet is a very different man in very different circumstances.
Cratylus: I mean, the name could be changed. Instead of “Macbeth”, Shakespeare could have called him “Hamlet”.
Socrates: A rose by any other name smells as sweet, my friend. You may call him Hamlet, Cratylus, or even Socrates. He is still Macbeth. He is the man who kills his king.
Cratylus: Yes, because he is driven by ambition and fate, and ambition and fate are not personal.
Socrates: Look, this is the whole problem. You are reading Shakespeare the way Plato taught us. You are looking for universal concepts and using them to explain the behaviour of the characters.
Cratylus: The truth is always what is universal. That is the entire basis of Greek philosophy.
Socrates: Quite so. But to understand Shakespeare, you must learn to think in a different way. You must learn to understand the individual. The story of Macbeth is about the man Macbeth.
Cratylus: A man driven by the universal concepts of ambition and fate!
Socrates: Tell me, Cratylus, what is ambition? Isn’t it the desire for honour and prestige?
Cratylus: Exactly so.
Socrates: And doesn’t Macbeth begin the story in the most honourable position possible? Hasn’t he just single-handedly defeated the enemy in battle? Isn’t he praised by his king in front of his countrymen? Doesn’t his king reward him handsomely with new titles and wealth?
Cratylus: Quite right.
Socrates: And don’t we say that ambition is born of qualities such as vanity, greed, pride, and even resentment? Doesn’t Macbeth have none of these?
Cratylus: He has none.
Socrates: And isn’t Macbeth fully well aware that killing his king is a crime that is completely without justification? Doesn’t he wrestle with the problem intensely?
Cratylus: He does.
Socrates: Then how can it be ambition which drives Macbeth? Furthermore, he lives in a monarchy. Both Plato and Aristotle tell us that only a timocracy encourages ambition. Macbeth has nothing to be ambitious about. He lives in a world dictated by duty and obedience.
Cratylus: Yes. And his duty is his fate.
Socrates: Correct. But what does he do with his fate, Cratylus?
Cratylus: He follows it, like any man must.
Socrates: He kills it. Macbeth is not driven by fate; he is driven by the desire to escape fate.
Cratylus: We might say he was ambitious to escape his fate.
Socrates: That is not a sentence that would make sense to us Greeks.
Cratylus: I suppose not.
Socrates: All this becomes clear, my friend, when we learn how to read Shakespeare. We must understand his characters as individuals before we apply any universal concepts. This is surprisingly difficult to do because more than two millennia of philosophy has taught us to think of people only in terms of abstractions like ambition and fate.
Cratylus: Are you saying that Shakespeare teaches a different kind of philosophy?
Socrates: Shakespeare shows us individuals who must be understood as individuals. Either philosophy must learn to account for individuals, or it has to admit that there is an area of reality it cannot deal with. This problem shows up in many different ways in modern philosophy and science. Shakespeare was one of the first to raise it.
Cratylus: Hold on, Socrates. Shakespeare was a playwright who never even finished high school. What has he got to do with science and philosophy?
Socrates: A rose by any other name smells as sweet, my dear Cratylus. If philosophy is learning how to think, then Shakespeare must be a philosopher because he requires us to learn a new way of thinking.
Cratylus: And where do we learn this new way of thinking, Socrates?
Socrates: Why, right here, my friend, at Think Shakespeare!
***
Think Shakespeare launches on November 2. It will be an ongoing series of courses that teach practical skills in how to interpret the works of The Bard. More details on how the courses will run can be found here. Subscription options can be found here.