Paul Cantor passed away a few days ago. Titus has an eloquent piece about the man and his work, with some really great links to explore (esp. those Shakespeare lectures!), at Law & Liberty.
I like the way Titus labels Cantor a “Shakespearean.” While he will surely be remembered by many as a key pioneer of conservative “pop culture studies,” if not the key one, it was in Shakespeare studies that he made his greatest mark. His two deceptively “little” books in that field which I have read, Hamlet and Shakespeare’s Rome, (which is on Coriolanus and Antony & Cleopatra), are the best studies of those three plays I know. He recently released an expanded and totally reworked version of the book on the Roman plays—which now included Julius Caesar, and more reflections on Rome’s overall fate, bringing thinkers like Machiavelli into that question more directly. I haven’t gotten to that one yet, but I’m sure it’s great.
I also think his video lectures on the second tetralogy—Richard II, Henry IV, pts 1 and 2, and Henry V—are truly stellar.
I met Paul a number of times, during my couple of years at UVA—he was always good company, but I particularly remember a time he and I were together for a few hours at some airport after a conference. We hadn’t really conversed much prior to this other than in groups, at various UVA functions, often ones set up Jim Ceaser and his Program on Constitutionalism and Democracy. I just remember how fun and generous he was that one time—I was very excited that day about a political philosophy book I was reading by Chantal Delsol, and while he wasn’t familiar with her (brilliant) work, he just let me flow and express my enthusiasm, asked me good questions, and that led to one topic of conversation after another. I’m sure I also asked him some Shakespeare questions, as I had been very impressed with his Hamlet book.
How about a few teasers from those Shakespeare works, then, to honor the man?
The weakness of the nineteenth-century analysis is that it leads these critics [including ones who Cantor largely praises, such as A.C. Bradley] to interpret Hamlet’s tragedy as essentially subjective. They all search for some element in Hamlet that makes him view his task as problematic; they do not look for anything objective in Hamlet’s situation which makes his task genuinely problematic.
Fortunately, to raise the question of Hamlet’s religious beliefs need not involve us in the thorny question of Shakespeare’s. Though many critics have presumed…it is extremely difficult—if not impossible—to construct a consistent religious doctrine out of his plays.
Viewed in this light, the story of Antony and Cleopatra reveals its inner unity with that of Coriolanus. In taking the uncharted sea as their element and seeking out “new heaven, new earth,” Antony and Cleopatra resemble Coriolanus setting out from the gates of Rome in hopes of finding “a world elsewhere.” In trying to live without a city, all three exhibit the same pride and daring, the same urge to transcend the conventional limits of humanity. Hence Antony and Cleopatra are characterized by the same patter of god-beast imagery we observed in Coriolanus. On the divine level, Antony plays the roles of Mars and Jove, while Cleopatra appears as Venus and Isis. On the bestial level, Antony is generally associated with horses, and Cleopatra most frequently with serpents…
Ah, we’ll miss you, Paul!