Shakespeare's Terrible Neutrality

Abstract

This thesis explores what I term Shakespeare's terrible neutrality, a comprehensive and impartial stance that pervades his complete works. Drawing on a close reading of Shakespeare's plays, as well as on the critical tradition from Keats, George Steiner, and contemporary Shakespeare scholars, I argue that Shakespeare's terrible neutrality lies in his refusal to take a definitive stance (and at times even in his deliberate violation of poetic justice). This neutrality enables him to gain a comprehensive understanding of the world and human experience, particularly when considered across his entire oeuvre. Through a sustained engagement with four major themes - religion, politics, love, and law - this thesis demonstrates how Shakespeare repeatedly revisits similar scenarios, motifs, and dilemmas, adjusting variables such as character traits, social contexts, and narrative structures to create a world in which both positive and negative elements coexist, while readers can clearly discern right from wrong. Causal relationships cannot be reduced to a single predictable or explanatory framework, yet events unfold in ways consistent with reality and logic, and a greater diversity of characters and narrative developments becomes possible precisely because of this terrible neutrality.