1G0xxeB

3 7 0 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Volume 41 / Issue 3similar iconoclastic results. Macbeth is popular as an image of the destructioncaused by unfettered ambition and the inevitable madness that attacksthose willing to dare anything in pursuit of power. Under Burns’s guidance,however, it becomes clear that Shakespeare has a different view. On one hand,Macbeth is willing to forgo and preach against any type of moral constraint,but on the other hand Shakespeare makes it discernible that Macbeth isunwittingly guided by a queasy conscience that ultimately betrays his ownself-understanding (78–80, 85–86, 88, 90). Even as Macbeth utters his mostresolute and famous declaration that life is an idiot’s tale signifying nothing(99–100), his subsequent words and actions expose his nihilism as a kind ofboasting. 4 Brutus and Macbeth are not the paragons they claim to be, butalternate sides of the same self-contradictory coin.The structure of the overall argument of Shakespeare’s Political Wisdomis clear. After discussing contemporary assumptions that inhibit our abilityto read Shakespeare’s text, Burns begins with an analysis of Julius Caesar,whose political setting is far removed from the modern world. By beginningthis way, Burns encourages readers to see and reflect upon a politicallife filled with unapologetic ambition, and upon individuals who claim tomerit the city’s highest honors. The same underlying political realities alsoexist in Macbeth and The Merchant of Venice, but in the setting of Scotlandand Venice, the clarity of the political questions raised in ancient Rome isfiltered (“distorted”) through the religion of Christianity. The claims of thevirtuous and meritorious are more likely to be embedded in supernaturaljustifications, or even suppressed by an increasing reliance on divine providenceover commonsensical prudence. The heart of Burns’s effort, however,is contained in the last two chapters, on King Lear and The Tempest, where headdresses “the deepest question explored in these five plays, and the one onwhich Shakespeare invites us most often to reflect”: “Does the universe careat all about human beings?” It is here that the book’s disconcerting characteris most pronounced. How is it possible to know that the plays even addresssuch questions? Even if we assume that Shakespeare invites us to reflect onthese serious issues, how is it possible to discern his view?Characters such as Brutus and Macbeth are not the only individuals inShakespeare whose public statements are contradicted by their subsequentactions or private thoughts. Most characters, like most readers, fail on someonly one who cannot see this is Brutus himself. The text of the 1623 Folio edition of Shakespearemakes the ambiguity of the ghost’s identity clearer.4The character of Edmund in King Lear suffers a similar, but more philosophically interesting delusion(141–45).