Contents - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

Theseus links the ‘brains’ of the lovers in A Midsummer Night’s Dream with those of madmen.The minds of both groups are considered notorious for shaping fantasies that ‘apprehend’ phenomenathat have no actual substance from the point of view of the ‘comprehension’ of ‘cool reason’. Their‘shaping fantasies’ (Phantasiae) are acts of imagination that ‘apprehend’ their own, subjective,phenomenological experience and take it for ‘reality’ – creating something that is not comprehendedby ‘reason’ nor verifiable through the agreement of another person. Demetrius believes that at leastthe Duke and his train are substantial figures, and not merely the product of his own figuration – hisown imagination – because he can verify that his mind is ‘comprehending’ something tangible ratherthan merely ‘apprehending’ (imagining) the phenomena he sees. Lunatics and Lovers formapprehensions that are figments of their own subjective imaginations without seeking any objectiveverification that their apprehension is true. Lunatics do not take into account anyone else’s point ofview, and Shakespeare’s comic lovers are seldom persuaded that their often misdirected love isfoolish. It is only at the end of the play, when everything is resolved, that they are finally forced toadmit their folly. Whatever their foolish opinions, they find themselves confronted with ‘reality’ in thefinal scene when presented with a concrete situation in which all other choices have been eliminated.Shakespeare knew, well before David Hume, that the emotions play a greater part in motivatinghuman action, than reason.Shakespeare was drawing on the same ancient source as Hume, and before him John Locke, asboth men pursued their philosophical enquiries into the development of human understanding. Themost influential classical study to present a detailed discussion of the veracity of sense impressions,and the mind’s ability to grasp ‘truth’ was Cicero’s Academica. The Academica discusses the claimsmade by early Stoic philosophers about the nature of sense impressions, and how the mind comes to‘grasp’ the truth of appearances through an act of cognition that is somehow able to distinguishbetween an ‘apprehension’ – an ‘appearance’ or ‘impression’ (phantasia) that may be an illusion, amere fancy – and one that is an actual, concrete, representation of truth, a ‘true’ imagination. 5 Thelatter, Cicero described as a ‘cataleptic impression’ (phantasia katalēptikē); what Theseus called a‘comprehension’ as opposed to an ‘apprehension’.This technical term from early Stoic philosophy was used to describe a phantasia (an‘appearance’ or ‘impression’) that can immediately be understood as ‘true’, beyond any possibledoubt. It presupposes a cognitive ability in the perceiver that makes him or her capable of ‘assenting’to the belief that the object is actually what it seems to be, and not an hallucination, a dream figure, anoptical illusion, or even a very carefully constructed replica. The veracity of the appearance is definedby the ability of the perceiver to ‘grasp’ it with the mind in an act of will accompanied by an assertionthat the object is what it seems to be and has not been misconceived as, for instance, a square towermight be perceived from a distance, at first sight, to be round. It is through the collection of catalepticimpressions that the foundations of the mind are laid and the individual can build up a true knowledgeof the world. What is significant about the Stoic concept of phantasia katalēptikē is the understanding5 The term ‘Fancy’, derived directly from the Greek Phantasia, was translated into Latin as Imaginatio, the twoterms originally referring to the same concept.221