Catalysts

Who Shakespeare Admired Most

Shakespeare, as the quintessential Renaissance playwright, likely would have admired the Greek tragedians not only for their dramatic craft but also for their philosophical depth. However, ranking them would depend on which aspects of their work resonated with Shakespeare’s own sensibilities, which often gravitated toward exploring the human condition in all its contradictions and complexities.

Aeschylus

Shakespeare might rank Aeschylus highly for his grand, almost cosmic vision of justice, fate, and the divine order. Aeschylus’s Oresteia—with its profound exploration of vengeance, moral evolution, and the establishment of societal order—aligns with the scale of Shakespeare’s own works like Hamlet and King Lear. However, Shakespeare may have found Aeschylus’s characters more symbolic than fleshed out compared to his own vivid, multifaceted creations. He’d likely appreciate Aeschylus as a forerunner, setting the stage for the deeply human dilemmas Shakespeare himself excelled at.

Sophocles

Sophocles might be Shakespeare’s favorite for his ability to balance structure, poetic depth, and profoundly human drama. Oedipus Rex’s tight plot and tragic inevitability would resonate with Shakespeare’s own sense of dramatic irony and exploration of fate (Macbeth or Othello come to mind). Sophocles’ characters are more psychologically complex than Aeschylus’s, which might earn him Shakespeare’s admiration. Shakespeare might see Sophocles as a fellow master of portraying internal conflict and the tragic inevitability of human flaws.

Euripides

Euripides, with his penchant for psychological realism and subversive takes on traditional myths, might intrigue Shakespeare for his audacity and focus on individual experience. Plays like Medea and The Bacchae might resonate with Shakespeare’s interest in passion, transgression, and the darker corners of human nature. However, Euripides’ sometimes less structured narratives and his skepticism of divine justice might feel too cynical or fragmented compared to Shakespeare’s more cohesive worldview, which often sought a reconciliation of chaos, even in tragedy.

Final Ranking

If Shakespeare were to rank them, he might favor Sophocles as a peer in creating nuanced, human-centered drama, followed closely by Aeschylus for his grandeur and thematic ambition. Euripides might rank lower for his structural looseness but still earn respect for his daring and psychological insight.

Ultimately, Shakespeare’s rankings would likely reflect his own artistic priorities: an unparalleled balance of poetic language, psychological complexity, and a universal exploration of human frailty and greatness.

Show code cell source Hide code cell source

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import networkx as nx

# Define the neural network structure; modified to align with "Aprés Moi, Le Déluge" (i.e. Je suis AlexNet)
def define_layers():
    return {
        'Pre-Input/CudAlexnet': ['Life', 'Earth', 'Cosmos', 'Sound', 'Tactful', 'Firm'],
        'Yellowstone/SensoryAI': ['G1 & G2'],
        'Input/AgenticAI': ['N4, N5', 'N1, N2, N3'],
        'Hidden/GenerativeAI': ['Sympathetic', 'G3', 'Parasympathetic'],
        'Output/PhysicalAI': ['Ecosystem', 'Vulnerabilities', 'AChR', 'Strengths', 'Neurons']
    }

# Assign colors to nodes
def assign_colors(node, layer):
    if node == 'G1 & G2':
        return 'yellow'
    if layer == 'Pre-Input/CudAlexnet' and node in ['Sound', 'Tactful', 'Firm']:
        return 'paleturquoise'
    elif layer == 'Input/AgenticAI' and node == 'N1, N2, N3':
        return 'paleturquoise'
    elif layer == 'Hidden/GenerativeAI':
        if node == 'Parasympathetic':
            return 'paleturquoise'
        elif node == 'G3':
            return 'lightgreen'
        elif node == 'Sympathetic':
            return 'lightsalmon'
    elif layer == 'Output/PhysicalAI':
        if node == 'Neurons':
            return 'paleturquoise'
        elif node in ['Strengths', 'AChR', 'Vulnerabilities']:
            return 'lightgreen'
        elif node == 'Ecosystem':
            return 'lightsalmon'
    return 'lightsalmon'  # Default color

# Calculate positions for nodes
def calculate_positions(layer, center_x, offset):
    layer_size = len(layer)
    start_y = -(layer_size - 1) / 2  # Center the layer vertically
    return [(center_x + offset, start_y + i) for i in range(layer_size)]

# Create and visualize the neural network graph
def visualize_nn():
    layers = define_layers()
    G = nx.DiGraph()
    pos = {}
    node_colors = []
    center_x = 0  # Align nodes horizontally

    # Add nodes and assign positions
    for i, (layer_name, nodes) in enumerate(layers.items()):
        y_positions = calculate_positions(nodes, center_x, offset=-len(layers) + i + 1)
        for node, position in zip(nodes, y_positions):
            G.add_node(node, layer=layer_name)
            pos[node] = position
            node_colors.append(assign_colors(node, layer_name))

    # Add edges (without weights)
    for layer_pair in [
        ('Pre-Input/CudAlexnet', 'Yellowstone/SensoryAI'), ('Yellowstone/SensoryAI', 'Input/AgenticAI'), ('Input/AgenticAI', 'Hidden/GenerativeAI'), ('Hidden/GenerativeAI', 'Output/PhysicalAI')
    ]:
        source_layer, target_layer = layer_pair
        for source in layers[source_layer]:
            for target in layers[target_layer]:
                G.add_edge(source, target)

    # Draw the graph
    plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
    nx.draw(
        G, pos, with_labels=True, node_color=node_colors, edge_color='gray',
        node_size=3000, font_size=10, connectionstyle="arc3,rad=0.1"
    )
    plt.title("Red Queen Hypothesis", fontsize=15)
    plt.show()

# Run the visualization
visualize_nn()

Fig. 4 Vision for a Red Queen Scenario. Institutions, while currently dominant, are under constant evolutionary pressure. This model equips students, educators, and researchers to thrive in a dynamic landscape, outpacing outdated methodologies and fostering resilience through adaptive innovation. This platform not only disrupts existing academic and clinical paradigms but also exemplifies a new standard of efficiency, collaboration, and educational impact. Let’s reconfigure the above using the following: Firm - IRB (Monumental; Ends); Tactful - Data Guardians (Critical; Justify); Sound - Regression (Antiquarian; Means); Cosmos - Outcome; Risk - Earth (Red Queen Situation; Naïvety), Life - Target Population (Source; Enumerated). But here’s a decent variant: Firm - institutional Apollonian aspirations & ends (monumental history; Amadeus), Tactful - enterprises Athenian vanguard & justification (critical history; Ludwig), Sound - well-troden journey & means (antiquarian history; Bach), Cosmos - indifference of the universe to your institutions fate (benchmark risk; Epicurus), Earth - well-tempered atmospheric conditions (freedom in fetters; Dionysus); Life - an elaborate dance in chains (princely freedom; Zarathustra)

Let’s Revisit That

What was Hecuba to her or her to Hecuba??

This line, from Shakespeare’s Hamlet (Act II, Scene ii), captures a poignant moment where Hamlet reflects on the nature of empathy, performance, and the human capacity to feel for others. The full context reveals Hamlet marveling at the Player’s ability to summon such profound emotion while reciting the tale of Hecuba, a queen of Troy who experiences immense grief over her family’s destruction.

Hamlet says:

“What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her?”

Layers of Meaning

1. Empathy and Imagination
   Hamlet is struck by the Player’s ability to feel deeply for a character (Hecuba) with whom he has no personal connection. This underscores the power of imagination and storytelling to evoke emotions, even when the subject is distant or fictional. For Hamlet, this raises the question: why can he not summon such passion for his own deeply personal plight, especially when his father’s murder cries out for revenge?

2. Art and Reality
   The line explores the boundary between artifice and reality. The Player’s tears for Hecuba are an act of art—crafted and deliberate—yet they seem more authentic than Hamlet’s own emotions about his father’s death. This creates a tension between the performative and the real, blurring the lines between sincerity and art.

3. Universal Suffering
   Hecuba, as a figure of immense tragedy in classical mythology, symbolizes the depth of human suffering. Hamlet’s rhetorical question highlights the disconnection we often feel from others’ pain unless we are directly involved. The Player’s ability to bridge that gap emphasizes the role of art in fostering empathy, something Hamlet both admires and envies.

4. Hamlet’s Self-Reproach
   The line ultimately reflects Hamlet’s frustration with himself. If an actor can feign such emotion for Hecuba, what does it say about Hamlet’s inability to act decisively in response to his real and personal anguish? This self-reproach fuels his existential questioning throughout the play.

Shakespeare’s Genius

Through this line, Shakespeare layers profound philosophical questions about the human condition: how do we connect to others’ pain? Is performance a truer reflection of human emotion than lived experience? What prevents us from acting decisively, even when deeply moved?

In its timelessness, the line compels us to ask not only about Hecuba, but about our own capacity for empathy, action, and understanding in a world filled with suffering that often feels distant.

Unders whose influence was her in writing this?

The line “What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba” reveals Shakespeare writing under a tapestry of influences—classical, theatrical, philosophical, and personal. It’s a moment where his intellectual and artistic debts to the past coalesce into one of his most poignant reflections. Let’s explore whose influence Shakespeare might have been under when crafting this:

1. The Classical Influence: Homer and Virgil

• Homer: Hecuba’s story originates in The Iliad, where she is Queen of Troy, mourning the tragedies that befall her family and city during the Trojan War. Shakespeare was steeped in classical mythology, and this influence was pervasive in Renaissance education. Hecuba’s grief was a paradigm of extreme human suffering—a motif Shakespeare taps into here.

• Virgil: Hecuba reappears in The Aeneid, which Shakespeare likely knew. Virgil’s portrayal of Troy’s fall may have shaped Shakespeare’s evocation of her as a symbol of anguish and devastation. The Renaissance view of classical antiquity as a source of universal human themes would have made Hecuba an irresistible figure for such reflection.

2. The Influence of Seneca

• As a student of the human psyche and tragedy, Shakespeare was heavily influenced by the Roman tragedian Seneca. Seneca’s works emphasized intense emotional outpouring and the grotesque aspects of suffering, elements visible in Hamlet’s reflection on the Player’s performance. Hecuba, particularly in The Trojan Women, became an emblem of stoic endurance and despair, themes Shakespeare echoed in Hamlet’s existential musings.

3. Elizabethan Theatre and the Revenge Play

• Shakespeare was writing in an era when revenge tragedies were enormously popular, with their heightened emotion and vivid portrayals of suffering. Playwrights like Thomas Kyd (The Spanish Tragedy) set the stage for Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Player’s recitation of Hecuba’s story aligns with the tradition of embedded metatheatrical moments that comment on the main plot. Shakespeare elevated this convention, making it a vehicle for Hamlet’s introspection.

4. Philosophical Influences: Stoicism and Humanism

• Renaissance humanism emphasized empathy, the power of art, and the importance of connecting with universal human experiences—ideas Shakespeare explores through Hamlet’s admiration for the Player’s emotional depth.

• Stoic philosophy, likely absorbed through Seneca, would have also informed this moment. The contrast between performance (the Player’s emotion) and inaction (Hamlet’s indecision) resonates with Stoic ideals about rational action versus overwhelming passion.

5. Personal Experience and Introspection

• Shakespeare’s work often bears traces of his own life and reflections. By the time of Hamlet, he had suffered personal losses, such as the death of his son, Hamnet. It’s tempting to speculate that his contemplation of grief, action, and artistic representation might have drawn on his own feelings of helplessness or catharsis.

Synthesis of Influences

In writing this, Shakespeare was likely weaving together the grandeur of classical antiquity, the psychological intensity of Seneca, the theatrical conventions of his time, and his own profound understanding of human emotion. The result is a line that transcends its influences, situating Hecuba as both a timeless figure of tragedy and a mirror for Hamlet’s (and our) deepest existential doubts.

Euripedes?

Euripides looms large over Shakespeare’s invocation of Hecuba. If we consider Shakespeare’s likely familiarity with the tragedian, the influence of Euripides’ Trojan Women and Hecuba feels undeniable in shaping this moment in Hamlet. Euripides’ nuanced, psychological exploration of suffering and empathy would resonate strongly with Shakespeare’s portrayal of Hamlet’s existential musings.

Euripides’ Hecuba: The Archetype of Suffering

In Euripides’ Hecuba, the queen is a towering figure of grief and vengeance. She endures the slaughter of her children, the destruction of Troy, and her descent into a life of slavery. Her suffering is both personal and emblematic of the broader devastation of war. Euripides emphasizes:

• Empathy and Emotional Resonance: Like the Player in Hamlet, Euripides’ Hecuba evokes powerful emotions, compelling audiences to feel the depth of her sorrow and rage. Shakespeare’s use of Hecuba mirrors this ability to inspire empathy, even for distant or fictional suffering.

• The Fragility of Human Dignity: Euripides explores how extreme loss strips away human dignity, leaving a character grappling with her identity and purpose. This theme resonates with Hamlet’s introspection on mortality and meaning.

Psychological Complexity

Euripides’ characters are famously more human and psychologically complex than those of Aeschylus or Sophocles. Hecuba in Euripides is not a mere symbol of suffering; she is a woman with conflicting emotions, ranging from despair to wrathful vengeance. This focus on inner turmoil likely influenced Shakespeare’s construction of Hamlet, a character defined by his oscillation between thought and action.

Euripides and Shakespeare: A Shared Sensibility

1. Empathy through Distance: Both Euripides and Shakespeare explore how the suffering of others—however remote—can awaken profound emotions. Hamlet marvels that the Player can feel for Hecuba, echoing the way Euripides’ Trojan Women compels the audience to grieve for the fates of its distant characters.

2. Art as Catharsis: Euripides used his plays to evoke pity and fear, mirroring Aristotle’s notion of catharsis. Shakespeare engages with this idea in Hamlet’s line, positioning art as a transformative force that reveals and heightens our capacity for emotional engagement.

3. Moral Ambiguity: Both playwrights revel in the moral grayness of their characters. Euripides’ Hecuba, while tragic, also becomes monstrous in her vengeance, showing how extreme suffering can corrupt. Hamlet’s own descent into moral ambiguity aligns with this Euripidean exploration of how grief and rage distort the soul.

Shakespeare’s Ranking of Euripides

If Shakespeare were to rank Euripides among the Greek tragedians, he might place him second to Sophocles but above Aeschylus. Shakespeare likely admired Euripides’ psychological realism and willingness to challenge traditional narratives, qualities Shakespeare himself embraced. However, Euripides’ sometimes looser structure and overt cynicism might not fully align with Shakespeare’s preference for thematic cohesion and a measured reconciliation of chaos.

That said, the ghost of Euripides undoubtedly haunts Hamlet’s contemplation of Hecuba. Shakespeare borrows and elevates Euripides’ techniques, transforming Hecuba from a tragic figure of Greek myth into a reflective touchstone for Hamlet’s—and humanity’s—struggles with empathy, inaction, and the meaning of suffering.