, does not.
As JacquesRancière notes, the Aristotelian
distinction between human and animal can only be the result of a
rather unlikely forgetting of Plato. In particular, it involves
suppressing the passages in the Republic that are all too
clear on the animalistic nature of crowds who, at the instigation of
an orator, will express pleasure and displeasure. 11 Rancière argues
speculate what kind of pedagogue he would have been. 84 If William’s
queer Latin lesson is anything to go by, the dramatist’s
instruction would have been like that of the eighteenth-century teacher
praised by JacquesRancière in The Ignorant Schoolmaster ,
who encouraged pupils to ‘get lost’ in their very
confusion, rather than cramming them with knowledge and ‘having them repeat
it like parrots’, on the
In place of the absolutist poetics and controlling ego
of the self-consecrated Elizabethan penman promulgated by Sidney or
Jonson, the distracted absent-mindedness of this ‘poor
player’ augurs something far more modern: the potential that
JacquesRancière finds in pensiveness to deconstruct the literary text
‘in favour of an indeterminate expressive logic’; or which
Minnesota Press, 1978 ).
This notion of partage has been
central to the recent work of both Jean-Luc Nancy and JacquesRancière. See, for example, Nancy, The Inoperative
Community , trans. P. Connor and others (Minneapolis,
Minnesota University Press, 1991 ); La
ought not walk, Upon a labouring
day without the sign Of your
profession? [ 1,1,2–5 ]
Why do intellectuals make so much of shoemakers?
asks JacquesRancière. The answer he gives in The Philosopher
and His Poor is that the shoemaker figures as the
archetypal artisan, who because his work never advances beyond mere
was thus the
fulfilment of what Shakespeare’s Caesar has in mind, and JacquesRancière describes in The Emancipated Spectator as a
Platonist theatre to end theatre :
Plato wanted to replace the
democratic, ignorant community of theatre with a different
… choreographic community where everyone must move in
one of symbolic representation. At
the same time, I suggest, Shakespeare’s human comedy
‘bodies forth’ [ Dream, 5,1,14 ] all the twists of
presence and representation traced by theorists such as JacquesRancière. For while an author may rejoice that ‘the free
breath of a sacred king’ [ John, 3,1,74 ] has but ‘a
little scene, / To monarchize’ [ Richard II,
See the discussion of this in terms of the
work of JacquesRancière below, pp. 123–4.
Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus , ed. E.
M. Waith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984 ).
It is hard to avoid the