WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (1564-1616)

THE TRAGEDIES
The Plays of Tragic Conception Romeo and Juliet (1591-1595)
- source: an Italian tale translated into verse as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562, and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1582; - quite similar in plot, theme, and dramatic ending to the story of Pyramus and Thisbe, told by Ovid in his Metamorphoses. - characters: * the Montagues: Lord Montague; Lady Montague; Romeo, his son; Benvolio, Romeos cousin; servants. * the Capulets: Lord Capulet; Lady Capulet; Juliet, their daughter; Tybalt, Juliets cousin; Rosaline, a niece of lord Capulet; Juliets nurse; servants. * the ruling house of Verona: Prince Escalus; Count Paris, his kinsman and Juliets suitor; Mercutio, another kinsman of the prince and friend of Romeo. * Friar Laurence; Friar John; an apothecary. Romeo: Romeo experiences a love of such purity and passion that he kills himself when he believes that the object of his love, Juliet, has died. The power of Romeos love, however, often obscures a clear vision of Romeos character, which is far more complex. At the beginning of the play, he appears as a great reader of love poetry and a young man smitten by Rosalines charms. Rosaline, of course, slips from Romeos mind at the first sight of Juliet. But Juliet is no mere replacement. Romeos love for her is far deeper, more authentic and unique than the clichd love he felt for Rosaline. Romeos love matures over the course of the play from the shallow desire to be in love to a profound and intense passion. Yet Romeos deep capacity for love is merely a part of his larger capacity for intense feeling of all kinds, in other words, for his incapacity for moderation. Love compels him to sneak into the garden of his enemys daughter, risking death simply to catch a glimpse of her. Anger compels him to kill his wifes cousin in a reckless duel to avenge his friends death. Despair compels him to commit suicide upon hearing of Juliets death. Such extreme behavior dominates Romeos character throughout the play and contributes to the ultimate tragedy that befalls the lovers. Had Romeo restrained himself from killing Tybalt, or waited even one day before killing himself after hearing the news of Juliets death, matters might have ended happily. Among his friends, especially while bantering with Mercutio, Romeo shows glimpses of his social persona. He is intelligent, quick-witted, fond of verbal jousting (particularly about sex), loyal, and unafraid of danger. Juliet: Having not quite reached her fourteenth birthday, Juliet is of an age that stands on

the border between immaturity and maturity. At the plays beginning, she seems merely an obedient, nave child. When Lady Capulet mentions Pariss interest in marrying Juliet, Juliet dutifully responds that she will try to see if she can love him, a response that seems childish in its obedience and in its immature conception of love. However, Juliet already gives glimpses of her determination, strength, and sober-mindedness from her earliest scenes, which offer a preview of the woman she will become. Juliets first meeting with Romeo propels her full-force toward adulthood. Though profoundly in love with him, Juliet is able to see and criticize Romeos rash decisions and his tendency to romanticize things. After Romeo kills Tybalt and is banished, Juliet does not follow him blindly. She makes a logical and heartfelt decision that her loyalty and love for Romeo must be her guiding priorities. Essentially, Juliet cuts herself loose from her prior social mooringsher Nurse, her parents, and her social position in Veronain order to try to reunite with Romeo. When she wakes in the tomb to find Romeo dead, she does not kill herself out of feminine weakness, but rather out of an intensity of love, just as Romeo did. Juliets suicide actually requires more nerve than Romeos: while he swallows poison, she stabs herself through the heart with a dagger. Juliets development from a wide-eyed girl into a self-assured, loyal, and capable woman is one of Shakespeares early triumphs of characterization. It also marks one of his most confident and rounded treatments of a female character. Friar Laurence: He is a kindhearted cleric who helps Romeo and Juliet throughout the play. He performs their marriage and gives generally good advice, especially with regard to the need for moderation. But Friar Laurence is also the most scheming and political character in the play: he marries Romeo and Juliet as part of a plan to end the civil strife in Verona; he spirits Romeo into Juliets room and then out of Verona; he devises the plan to reunite Romeo and Juliet through the deceptive ruse of a sleeping potion that seems to arise from almost mystic knowledge. This mystical knowledge seems out of place for a Catholic friar; why does he have such knowledge, and what could such knowledge mean? The answers are not clear. In addition, though Friar Laurences plans seem well conceived and well intentioned, they serve as the main mechanisms through which the fated tragedy of the play occurs. The Friar is not only subject to the fate that dominates the playin many ways he brings that fate about. Mercutio: With a lightning-quick wit and a clever mind, Mercutio is one of Shakespeares most memorable characters. Though he constantly puns, jokes, and teases sometimes in fun, sometimes with bitternessMercutio is not a mere jester or prankster. With his wild words, Mercutio punctures romantic sentiments and blind self-love in the play. He mocks at Romeos self-indulgence just as he ridicules Tybalts arrogance and adherence to fashion. Stephen Greenblatt describes Mercutio as a force within the play that functions to deflate the possibility of romantic love and the power of tragic fate. Unlike the other characters who blame their deaths on fate, Mercutio dies cursing all Montagues and Capulets. Mercutio believes that specific people are responsible for his death rather than some external impersonal force.

Themes and Motifs

Love is naturally the plays dominant and most important theme. The play focuses on romantic love, specifically the intense passion that springs up at first sight between Romeo and

Juliet. In Romeo and Juliet, love is a violent, ecstatic, overpowering force that supersedes all other values, loyalties, and emotions. In the course of the play, the young lovers are driven to defy their entire social world: families, friends, and ruler. Shakespeare is not interested in portraying a prettied-up, dainty version of love, the kind that bad poets write about, and whose bad poetry Romeo reads while pining for Rosaline. Love in Romeo and Juliet is a brutal, powerful emotion that captures individuals and catapults them against their world, and, at times, against themselves. The play does not make a specific moral statement about the relationships between love and society, religion, and family; rather, it portrays the chaos and passion of being in love, combining images of love, violence, death, religion, and family in an impressionistic rush leading to the plays tragic conclusion. Love as a cause of violence: The themes of death and violence permeate Romeo and Juliet, and they are always connected to passion, whether that passion is love or hate. Love seems to push the lovers closer to violence; they are plagued with thoughts of suicide, and a willingness to experience it. The lovers double suicide is the highest, most potent expression of love that they can make. It is only through death that they can preserve their love, and their love is so profound that they are willing to end their lives in its defense. In the play, love emerges as an amoral thing, leading as much to destruction as to happiness. But in its extreme passion, the love that Romeo and Juliet experience also appears so exquisitely beautiful that few would want, or be able, to resist its power. The individual versus society: Much of Romeo and Juliet involves the lovers struggles against public and social institutions that either explicitly or implicitly oppose the existence of their love. Such structures range from the concrete to the abstract: families and the placement of familial power in the father; law and the desire for public order; religion; and the social importance placed on masculine honour. These institutions often come into conflict with each other. The importance of honour, for example, time and again results in brawls that disturb the public peace. One could see Romeo and Juliet as a battle between the responsibilities and actions demanded by social institutions and those demanded by the private desires of the individual. Romeo and Juliets appreciation of night, with its darkness and privacy, and their renunciation of their names, with its attendant loss of obligation, make sense in the context of individuals who wish to escape the public world. But the lovers cannot stop the night from becoming day. And Romeo cannot cease being a Montague simply because he wants to; the rest of the world will not let him. The lovers suicides can be understood as the ultimate night, the ultimate privacy. The inevitability of fate: In its first address to the audience, the Chorus states that Romeo and Juliet are star-crossedthat is to say that fate (a power often vested in the movements of the stars) controls them. This sense of fate permeates the play, and not just for the audience. The mechanism of fate works in all of the events surrounding the lovers: the feud between their families (which is never explained); the horrible series of accidents that ruin Friar Laurences seemingly well-intentioned plans at the end of the play; and the tragic timing of Romeos suicide and Juliets awakening. These events are not mere coincidences, but rather manifestations of fate that help bring about the unavoidable outcome of the young lovers deaths.

Shakespeares Second Period of Creation

a significant change in tone: the brightness and sunshine of the earlier plays give way to gloomy seriousness and even bitterness, which seem to affect even the comedies (see the problem plays). Whether caused by personal disappointment or illustrative for a more widelyspread depression, which seems to have affected the Elizabethan society at the turn of the century, this change in tone has found its best expression particularly in the plays that give the full measure of Shakespeares maturity as a playwright, namely the tragedies: - Hamlet ; - Othello; - King Lear; - Macbeth; - Timon of Athens; - Antony and Cleopatra; - Coriolanus. In them, the world is pictured as full of evil forces and man as being either thoughtless, in which case he blindly answers the call of elementary passions jealousy, ambition, irrational love or meditative, and then his meditative turn of mind paralyzes his will. (Gavriliu, 1978: 200-201) In particular in his so-called great tragedies (Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and Macbeth), Shakespeare has endeavoured to translate his enhanced awareness of the complexity of human nature and to contain something of the larger dimensions of life within the limiting formality of art (Daiches, 1991: 271).

Hamlet (c. 1601)

- circulated in the form of three separate texts: the 1603 version, also referred to as the bad quarto, apparently a garbled reconstruction, largely from memory, of Shakespeares play put together by a player who doubled the parts of Marcellus and the Second Player; the 1604 version, also referred to as the good quarto, representing Shakespeares full text; the 1623 version included in the First Folio, a cut acting version, with nevertheless some passages not in the 1604 quarto. (Daiches, 1991: 267) - sources: probably the revenge tragedy Ur-Hamlet (no longer available nowadays) attributed to Thomas Kyd; the original story: told, around 1200, by the Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus in his Latin Historia Danica, and then retold, with only slight alterations, in a collection of tragic stories by Franois de Belleforest. - elements preserved from the original story: * Amleths feigning madness so that the usurping uncle would regard him as a completely mindless lunatic not worth killing; * agents sent by the usurping uncle to find out whether Amleths idiocy is genuine: one of these agents is a girl, the original of Ophelia, while another, presumably one of

Amleths friends, the original of Polonius. * the spy hiding in Amleths mothers room to overhear a conversation between mother and son, discovered and killed by Amleth; * an attempt to have Amleth put to death in England; * Amleth achieving his revenge, slaying his wicked uncle with his own sword. Senecan elements incorporated in the play (presumably by Kyd): * the ghost crying for revenge (Hamlet, revenge!); * the original murder done secretly by poisoning; * madness ( Hamlet and Ophelia); * the final massacre (the death of all the major characters, the fencing match, and the poisoned rapier and drink); * the device of the play-within-the-play. What cannot be, however, denied is that Shakespeares task was to rework the melodramatic Senecan revenge play Ur-Hamlet and, thus, to impose a new, tragic meaning on a traditional story, by his arrangement and presentation of the action, by the kind of life and motivation he gave to the characters, and by the overtones of meaning and suggestion set up by his poetic handling of the characters language. (Daiches, 1991: 268) characters : the guards Francisco and Bernardo; Marcellus; Horatio, prince Hamlets friend; old Hamlets ghost; prince Hamlet; Claudius, his uncle; Gertrude, young Hamlets mother and Claudiuss wife; Polonius, the royal counsellor; Laertes, Poloniuss son; Ophelia, Poloniuss daughter; Fortinbras, prince of Norway; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two of Hamlets friends from Wittenberg; a troupe of actors; Osric.

Hamlet: a New Historicism Perspective

Hamlets attitude towards his mothers marriage with Claudius: the marriage is unlawful by Ecclesiastical canons (incest) the tables of consanguinity : a man may not marry his mother, his fathers sister or his mothers sister, his sister, his daughter or the daughter of his own son or daughter; to put it otherwise, the table of consanguinity prohibits marriages with close blood ties, in the generations in which it might plausibly occur (parent, sibling, offspring, and grandchild). the marriage deprives Hamlet of his lawful succession the table of affinity: it reflects unions which might produce conflicting inheritance claims. By marrying Gertrude, Claudius has caused the alienation of Hamlets line (But now, my cousin Hamlet, and my son). * Of course, one might say that this matter of succession is, in fact, rather ambiguous, given the fact that, according to the Scandinavian system, the Danish throne was an elective one, with the royal council naming the next king; therefore, even after his fathers death, there was no actual guarantee that Hamlet and not his uncle might be elected to the throne. But, though setting the action of the play in Denmark, Shakespeare chooses to represent the matter of succession as conceived in the English society, according to which Hamlet, as his fathers only son, is the rightful heir, which makes his uncle a usurper.

 parallelism between certain characters and public figures of the time:

Hamlets figure seems to have been inspired by that of the Earl of Essex, whose rebellion failed and brought about his execution under the charge of treason on February 25th, 1601; Polonius boring, meddling, given to wise old sentences and truisms, maintaining an elaborate spying system on both friend and foe might have been modelled after Elizabeths treasurer, William Cecil; Other characters correspond to some stock characters of those days that could be easily identified among the aristocrats such as: Osric the Elizabethan dandy; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the obsequious courtiers; Laertes and Fortinbras the men of few words, but of great deeds; Horatio the Roman friend; Ophelia the ineffectual courtly love heroine. (Muir and Schoenbaum, 1976: 168179).

Hamlet: a Psychoanalytical Perspective

The Problem of Hamlet (Sigmund Freud)

Oedipus complex = a child's unconscious desire for the exclusive love of the parent of the opposite sex. This desire includes jealousy toward the parent of the same sex and the unconscious wish for that parent's death. (See Oedipus who slew his father Laus and married his mother Jocasta) Nevertheless, it is clear that an innate desire to kill ones father and sleep with ones mother runs contrary to the very fabric of the society. The difference between this innate urge and the demands of the civilization is then mediated by repression and sublimation. Id Ego Superego: The id is the unorganised, the dark, inaccessible part of our personality that contains the basic drives. It is the great reservoir of the libido, from which the ego seeks to distinguish itself through various mechanisms of repression. Because of that repression, the id seeks alternative expression for those impulses that we consider evil or excessively sexual, impulses that we often felt as perfectly natural at an earlier or archaic stage and have since repressed. The id is governed by the pleasure-principle and is oriented towards ones internal instincts and passions. Freud also argues on occasion that the id represents the inheritance of the species, which is passed on to us at birth. For Freud, the ego is "the representative of the outer world to the id." In other words, the ego represents and enforces the reality-principle whereas the id is concerned only with the pleasure-principle. Whereas the ego is oriented towards perceptions in the real world, the id is oriented towards internal instincts; whereas the ego is associated with reason and sanity, the id belongs to the passions. The ego, however, is never able fully to distinguish itself from the id, of which the ego is, in fact, a part. The ego could also be said to be a defense against the superego and its ability to drive the individual subject towards inaction or suicide as a result of crippling guilt. Freud sometimes represents the ego as continually struggling to defend itself from three dangers or masters: "from the external world, from the libido of the id, and from the severity of the super-ego. The super-ego is the faculty that seeks to police what it deems unacceptable desires; it represents all moral restrictions and is the "advocate of a striving towards perfection. Originally, the super-ego had the task of repressing the Oedipus complex and, so, is closely

caught up in the psychodramas of the id; it is, in fact, a reaction-formation against the primitive object-choices of the id, specifically those connected with the Oedipus complex. The young heterosexual male deals with the Oedipus complex by identifying with and internalizing the father and his prohibitions. As we grow into adulthood, various other individuals or organizations will take over the place of the father and his prohibitions (the church, the law, the police, the government). Because of its connection to the id, the superego has the ability to become excessively moral and thus lead to destructive effects. The super-ego is closely connected to the "ego ideal." (See Felluga, Terms and Concepts in Introduction to Psychoanalysis, http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/psychoanalysis/psychterms.html) Hamlets case: That Hamlet has fundamental urges which are not visible in the course of the play is a tribute to the energy he has invested in repressing them. And he is successful in repressing his jealousy for his father and attraction to his mother until Gertrudes remarriage with Claudius. Under the new circumstances, repression of incestuous and parricidal drives must be carried out again, but it is hindered by the Ghosts injunction to kill Claudius, that is, to give vent to what he is trying to hold back. Julia Kristeva: The suffering for the initial maternal loss (incomplete or unsuccessful detachment from the mother) is painfully re-lived melancholy, in modern terms maniac-depressive psychosis, characterized, as it can be seen throughout the play, by symptoms of dejection, refusal of food, insomnia, crazy behaviour, fits of delirium, and finally raving madness. The original parental couple Old Hamlet - Gertrude, which, as a result of an initially successful repression of oedipal urges, was conceived as perfect, pure is replaced by a new one, Claudius Gertrude, which in the light of the newly reactivated complex appears shameful, lusty and corrupted:
How weary, stale [prostitute], flat [to copulate], and unprofitable Seem [to fornicate, with additional pun on 'seam': filth] to me all the uses [sexual enjoyment] of this world! Fie on't, ah fie [dung], 'tis an unweeded garden [womb] That grows [becomes pregnant] to seed [semen], things [male sex] rank [in heat] and gross [lewd] in nature [female sex] Possess it [sexually] merely ['merrily', lecherously]. (Crunelle-Vanrigh)

Hamlets first soliloquy juxtaposes the pre-oedipal and the oedipal pattern, the dyad and the triad, the merger and the end of the merger. Taking further the argumentation in Freudian terms, along Julia Kristevas lines, the conclusion is that Hamlets melancholia results from an incomplete detachment from the mother as much as from grieving for a dead father. (Observation: the Orestes complex a more appropriate model for the action in Hamlet: Orestes killed his mother Clytemnestra and her lover, his fathers kinsman, Aegisthus. The legend of Orestes, which historically marks a turning point in the social position of the mother, has far more similarity to the story of Hamlet than has the story of Oedipus. Frederic Wertham, Critique of Freuds Interpretation of Hamlet ) The function of the Ghost: preventing successful repression of oedipal urges - the place for the projection of the missing signifier, a messenger of the Law of the Father in Lacanian terms, which, by education, has been already assimilated by Hamlet; a construction of Hamlets psyche, meant to constantly bring back, by transference, the memory of the father ofthe Symbolic it stands for, in a context in which the Imaginary, embodied by Gertrude, seems to be re-gaining ground. Hamlet, torn between his dead father and his all-too present mother is a man to double business bound. The duty of remembering the father takes him along the paths of revenge; the necessity of detaching himself from the mother takes him along that

of Kristevan matricide, the only alternative to asymbolia, depression and self-destruction. Such complementary demands are registered in the play. Coextensive with the fathers dread command to avenge him is Hamlets readiness to avenge himself on his mother (CrunelleVanrigh). A key moment in the play for the understanding of Hamlets relationship with his mother and his striving for matricide: the Closet Scene (Act III, Scene 3) the son crosses into the enclosure of his mothers privacy to encounter her as a sexualized object. Reproved for his offensive behaviour (with the familiar thou of maternal scolding), Hamlet retaliates with the more grievous offence against his deceased natural father of his mothers remarriage to his brother. For once, his previously verbal assault is taken to the point of turning into violence and he appears to be on the verge of killing Gertrude, of killing off the mother; yet he fails. He turns his violence towards the man behind the curtain, presumably the king in fact Polonius , turning matricidal intents into pseudo-parricide. The mousetrap (The Murder of Gonzago): There is a peculiar point where the story of Gonzagos death differs from Old Hamlets. The king is killed, the killer marries the queen, but he is not the uncle, he is the nephew. From the Kristevan perspective, this might be the moment of artistic triumph of the melancholiac. The mousetrap enables him to secure the sublimatory grasp of the lost Thing which Kristeva describes, to create a Gertrude swearing everlasting faith. (Crunelle-Vanrigh) Hamlet and Ophelia: Hamlets sexual repression leads to hostile, misogynist behaviour regardless of whether the woman is perceived to be virtuous or lascivious. (Ernest Jones) As long as the mother has not been killed off, any woman will only be rejected as an erotic object, the melancholiac cannot cope with Eros, therefore he is a misogynist. (Julia Kristeva) (e.g. the Nunnery Scene) Other interpretations of Ophelias evolution as a character: Jane Aldeman - Ophelia, a sweet, obedient girl, is easily dominated/ manipulated by the ruling male forces in her life, i.e., her cynical father, her unperceptive brother, and Hamlet who projects upon her the guilt of feminine power threatening masculine identity first embodied by his mother -, breaking, by its uncontrolled sexuality, the limits of the patriarchal values of womanhood. Triple victimization madness suicide (described by Gertrude in Act IV, Scene 7): Ophelia returns to her element, i.e. water, to satisfy her grief. (See the Ophelia complex in G. Bachelard)

Hamlet: a Historicist Perspective

Why does Hamlet delay his revenge?
Avenger figures in the play: the conventional avenger = he does not look for justice, but for personal satisfaction, based on passion. Daring damnation, he sinks to the moral level of his victim and having usurped heavens right to punish, is also condemned to death. (Bolt, 1990: 13-14) Laertes the avenger who gives up revenge = Fortinbras. He also has a slain father, a fall in fortune, and, like Hamlet for instance, an uncle on the throne to contend with. He is ready to take action and regain his fathers lands from Denmark. Yet, when he is recalled

to order by the law, he is obedient, gives up taking justice into his own hands and he will be eventually rewarded for that. Hamlet and his many masks Hamlet - the unambiguously Elizabethan noble prince: Educated at a new university (Wittenberg), he lives in a specific extant castle (Elsinore) and is a connoisseur of modern plays and modern fencing. In this intellectual milieu, ghosts are hard to believe in. A man of noble principles, he passes brilliantly the test of fidelity while most of the others at the court, here including his own mother, fail it remaining faithful to the memory of his father and, at the same time, hiding his discontent with their behaviour. Loved by his people, especially by his soldiers, he seeks their company, understands and respects them. - the avenger: As a revenger, he ceases to be a noble prince and becomes a slave. It is a role in which he cannot take even his trusty friends into his confidence. (Bolt, 1990: 65) The aim of his revenge should be to punish a murder most foul by an equally foul one. This aspect might cast a new light on his decision not to kill Claudius when he finds him alone, on his knees in prayer. What, for some psychoanalysts, is a proof of Hamlet acknowledging in Claudius the very embodiment of his oedipal urges (he killed his father and married his mother), might appear, from a different perspective, a refusal to inflict too good an end for Claudius. - the malcontent: passionate and alienated, released by the Ghost. When in private, he may freely express in soliloquies his inner torment resulting from the clash between two codes of values: the morality of revenge, reminiscent of a dark, medieval past, and the dictates of his own temperament as a Renaissance philosopher and Christian. (e.g. To be or not to be - Act III, Scene 1: The deed with the bare bodkin that Hamlet contemplates, directly related to that so much wished-for quietus, is cast a new light upon with reference to the Great Chain of Being of the Elizabethan times. The fear of death might prevent two kinds of incompatible actions: self-destruction or self-assertion. Quietus may mean then pacification or the discharge of an obligation. Dispassionately exploring the maze of these implications, the ironist is not looking for the right direction. Instead he questions the very value of any sort of movement, while accepting that immobility too is painful. Bolt, 1990: 51) When in public, Hamlet the malcontent chooses to wear the mask of the fool and consequently adapts his speech shifting from the blank verse, more appropriate for the noble prince, to prose. That enables him to reject the society of Elsinore even while remaining within it. As a fool, he may not be held responsible for what he says, but he can use his folly as a stalking-horse to expose the truth. Furthermore, because of the traditional association of his role with the bawdy, the fool lends itself with facility to the expression of misogyny (Bolt, 1990: 72), which, as pointed out, characterizes the malcontent. The mousetrap a crucial moment when, though in public, he temporarily drops his fool mask. Hamlets death an avenger and a noble prince: Once he has accepted his role as an avenger, Hamlet regains his calm and the readiness of the soldier to die. He returns to Elsinore as the prince ready to perform his allotted task. He does no longer feel he must somehow manipulate the events. He just watches out for the opportunity which, sooner or later, is sure

to present itself. He conscience.

dies an avenger , but is eventually redeemed

by the renewal of

Hamlet: an Archetypal Approach

Hamlet and the Oedipus myth: the Sacrificial Scapegoat
Hamlet appears, just like Oedipus, as a haunted and sacrificial figure chosen to save his community at the cost of his own life. Ritual patterns: a royal sufferer is associated with the degradation of an entire social order. Hence, images of disease, evil, rottenness are recurrent to symbolise the overwhelming evil. the destiny of the individual and of the society are closely intertwined. the suffering of the royal victim is necessary before redemption and renewal are achieved. The Myth of Divine Appointment = the belief cherished by the Tudor monarchs since Henry VII that the Tudors had been appointed to bring order and happiness out of political chaos and civil strife. Any attempt to break the divine appointment would result into social and political disorder. (see also Richard III, Macbeth and King Lear) Claudiuss murder of his kingly brother has subverted both the divinely ordained laws of nature and the laws of the social organism regarding kingly succession and has turned Denmark into a diseased state. - imagery patterns of sickness, disease, corruption (e.g.: Act I, Scene I - Francisco: tis bitter cold, / And I am sick at heart. ; the Ghost; Act I, Scene 4 - Marcellus: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark., etc.) Denmark emerges thus as a model of natural and human degradation. Claudius: the serpent who now wears the crown (Act I, Scene 5) He bears the primal blood-curse of Cain in the Biblical myth. The natural cycle is interrupted, the nation threatened by war and chaos. It is Hamlets task then to seek out the source of the disease and to eliminate it so as to restore Denmark to its state of wholesome balance. (The time is out of joint; O cursed spite/That ever I was born to set it right. Act I, Scene 5) Hamlets role is that of the Prince-Hero who must not only avenge his fathers murder, but also offer himself as the Royal Scapegoat. He undertakes the mission of a cathartic agent and accepts Laertess challenge to the duel. The bloody climax: an essential component of the archetypal pattern of sacrifice atonement catharsis that will involve the death of all those who have been infected by the evil contagion: Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius, Laertes, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, even Ophelia. Denmark reborn under the new regime of the one who disavowed revenge, i.e., Fortinbras. The motif of the Sacrificial Scapegoat is doubled by a long and difficult spiritual quest: on the surface level, it is directed to solving the riddle of his fathers death, on the

deeper level, it explores the labyrinthine ways of human mystery (addressed in particular in the soliloquies).

Northrop Frye The Anatomy of Criticism: all narratives fall into one of the
four mythoi: - Summer (romance): the movement within the ideal world of innocence: stories that involve some type of search towards some kind of imaginative golden age in time or space. The brave and virtuous heroes and heroines overcome villainous threats to eventually attain their goals. - Autumn (tragedy): the movement from the ideal world to the real one, from innocence to experience: The protagonist or hero of a story, usually an idealist, is given choices that he should act upon but, eventually, he chooses the path to his demise or fall. - Winter (irony/ satire): the movement within the real world, the world of experience: Irony the real world seen through a tragic lens (characters may try to be heroic, but they never achieve heroic goals). Satire the real world seen through a comic lens (a world of human folly, excess and incongruity, where human frailty is mocked at with biting, merciless humour). - Spring (comedy): the movement from the world of experience to the world of innocence: The hero who must break an arbitrary law often preventing him/her from something s/he wants or requires. The hero is part of a new society that seeks to reform the existent society, often converting others into joining this new movement.

The 4 mythoi in Hamlet:

The summer phase is ironically reversed in the unsacred marriage and triumph of Claudius. The autumn phase the archetype of tragedy itself encloses the myth of the dying god, of violent death and isolation, as well as of the sacrifice of the hero. The next phase is darkness and winter. Haunted by the spectre of defeat throughout the play, the hero will triumph only in death. Finally, the conclusion of the tragedy is brightened by the promise of dawn, spring and rebirth under Fortinbras, following Hamlets defeat of the forces of darkness and winter through his sacrificial death.

Othello (1603)
first performed by the Kings Men at the court of King James I on November 1, 1604; historical setting: the wars between Venice and Turkey that raged in the latter part of the sixteenth century. Cyprus, which is the setting for most of the action, was a Venetian outpost attacked by the Turks in 1570 and conquered the following year. source:The History of the Turks by Richard Knolles, which was published in England in the autumn of 1603. other sources: an Italian prose tale written in 1565 by Giovanni Battista Giraldi Cinzio (usually referred to as Cinthio) a Moorish general is deceived by his ensign into believing that his wife is unfaithful.

characters : Othello, the Moor; Roderigo, a Venetian gentleman; Iago, Othellos ensign; Michael Cassio, Othellos lieutenant; Brabantio, a Venetian senator; Desdemona, his daughter; the Duke of Venice; Montano, the governor of Cyprus; Emilia, Iagos wife; Bianca, Cassios mistress; Gratiano and Lodovico, Brabantios relatives.

Main Characters
Othello: - the question of Othellos race: The word Moor now refers to the Islamic Arabic inhabitants of North Africa who conquered Spain in the eighth century, but the term was used rather broadly in the Elizabethan period and was sometimes applied to Africans from other regions. Othellos darkness or blackness is alluded to many times in the play, but Shakespeare and other Elizabethans frequently described brunette or darker than average Europeans as black. The opposition of black and white imagery that runs throughout Othello is certainly a marker of difference between Othello and his European peers. While Moor characters abound on the Elizabethan and Jacobean stage, none are given so major or heroic a role as Othello. Perhaps the most vividly stereotypical black character of the period is Aaron, the villain of Shakespeares early play Titus Andronicus. Aaron is lecherous, cunning, and vicious; Othello, by contrast, is a noble figure of great authority, respected and admired by the duke and senate of Venice as well as by those who serve him, such as Cassio, Montano, and Lodovico. Only Iago voices an explicitly stereotypical view of Othello, depicting him from the beginning as an animalistic, barbarous, foolish outsider. Beginning with the opening lines of the play, Othello remains at a distance from much of the action that concerns and affects him. Roderigo and Iago refer ambiguously to a he or him for much of the first scene. When they begin to specify whom they are talking about, especially once they stand beneath Brabantios window (Act I, scene 1), they do so with racial epithets, not names (e.g. the Moor, the thick-lips, an old black ram, and a Barbary horse); his name will be first mentioned only in Act I, scene 3. Later, Othellos will be the last of the three ships to arrive at Cyprus in Act II, scene 1; Othello will stand apart while Cassio and Iago supposedly discuss Desdemona in Act IV, scene 1; and Othello will assume that Cassio is dead without being present when the fight takes place in Act V, scene 1. Othellos status as an outsider may be the reason why he is such easy prey for Iago. Although Othello is a cultural and racial outsider in Venice, his skill as a soldier and leader is nevertheless valuable and necessary to the state, and he is an integral part of Venetian civic society. The Venetian government trusts Othello enough to put him in full martial and political command of Cyprus. Those who consider Othello their social and civic peer, such as Desdemona and Brabanzio, nevertheless seem drawn to him because of his exotic qualities. Othello sometimes makes a point of presenting himself as an outsider, whether because he recognizes his exotic appeal or because he is self-conscious of and defensive about his difference from other Venetians. While Othello is never rude in his speech, he does allow his eloquence to suffer as he is put under increasing strain by Iagos plots. In the final moments of the play, Othello regains his composure and, once again, seduces both his onstage and offstage

audiences with his words. It is the tension between Othellos victimization at the hands of a foreign culture and his own willingness to torment himself that makes him a tragic figure rather than simply Iagos ridiculous puppet. Iago: The most heinous villain in Shakespeare, Iago is fascinating for his most terrible characteristic: his utter lack of convincing motivation for his actions. In the first scene, he claims to be angry at Othello for having passed him over for the position of lieutenant; at the end of Act I, scene 3, Iago says he thinks Othello may have slept with his wife, Emilia. None of these claims seems to adequately explain Iagos deep hatred of Othello, and Iagos lack of motivationor his inability or unwillingness to express his true motivationmakes his actions all the more terrifying. He is willing to take revenge on anyoneOthello, Desdemona, Cassio, Roderigo, even Emiliaat the slightest provocation and enjoys the pain and damage he causes. Iago is often funny, especially in his scenes with the foolish Roderigo, which serve as a showcase of Iagos manipulative abilities. He seems almost to wink at the audience as he revels in his own skill. It is Iagos talent for understanding and manipulating the desires of those around him that makes him both a powerful and a compelling figure. Though the most inveterate liar, Iago inspires all of the plays characters the trait that is most lethal to Othello: trust. Desdemona: Arguments that see Desdemona as stereotypically weak and submissive ignore the conviction and authority of her first speech (My noble father, / I do perceive here a divided duty- Act I, scene 3) and her fury after Othello strikes her (I have not deserved this Act IV, scene 1). Desdemona is at times a submissive character, most notably in her willingness to take credit for her own murder. The play, then, depicts Desdemona contradictorily as a self-effacing, faithful wife and as a bold, independent personality. This contradiction may be intentional, meant to portray the way Desdemona herself feels after defending her choice of marriage to her father in Act I, scene 3, and then almost immediately being put in the position of defending her fidelity to her husband. She begins the play as an independent person, but midway through she must struggle against all odds to convince Othello that she is not too independent. The manner in which Desdemona is murderedsmothered by a pillow in a bed covered in her wedding sheetsis symbolic: she is literally suffocated beneath the demands put on her fidelity. From her first lines, Desdemona seems capable of meeting or even rising above those demands. In the end, Othello stifles the speech that made Desdemona so powerful. Like the audience, Desdemona seems able only to watch as her husband is driven insane with jealousy. Though she maintains to the end that she is guiltless, Desdemona also forgives her husband (Act V, scene 2). Her forgiveness of Othello may help the audience to forgive him as well.

Themes. Motifs. Symbols

The Incompatibility of Military Heroism & Love: Othello is a soldier. From the earliest moments in the play, his career affects his married life. The military career also provides Othello with a means to gain acceptance in the Venetian society. While the Venetians in the play are generally fearful of the prospect of Othellos social entrance into the white society through his marriage to Desdemona, all Venetians respect and honour him as a soldier. Mercenary Moors were, in fact, commonplace at the time. Othello predicates his success in love on his success as a soldier, wooing Desdemona

with tales of his military travels and battles. Once the Turks are drownedby natural rather than military mightOthello is left without anything to do. No longer having a means of proving his manhood or honour in a public setting such as the court or the battlefield, Othello begins to feel uneasy with his footing in a private setting, the bedroom. Iago capitalizes on this uneasiness. Desperate to cling to the security of his former identity as a soldier while his current identity as a lover crumbles, Othello begins to confuse the one with the other. Even in his final speech, Othello depends on his identity as a soldier to glorify himself in the publics memory, and to try to make his audience forget his and Desdemonas disastrous marital experience. The Danger of Isolation: The action of Othello moves from the metropolis of Venice to the island of Cyprus. Protected by military fortifications as well as by the forces of nature, Cyprus faces little threat from external forces. Once Othello, Iago, Desdemona, Emilia, and Roderigo have come to Cyprus, they have nothing to do but prey upon one another. Most prominently, Othello is visibly isolated from the other characters by his physical stature and the color of his skin. Iago is an expert at manipulating the distance between characters, isolating his victims so that they fall prey to their own obsessions. At the same time, Iago, of necessity always standing apart, falls prey to his own obsession with revenge. The characters cannot be islands, the play seems to say: self-isolation as an act of self-preservation leads ultimately to self-destruction. Such self-isolation leads to the deaths of Roderigo, Iago, Othello, and even Emilia. Sight and Blindness: When Desdemona asks to be allowed to accompany Othello to Cyprus, she says that she saw Othellos visage in his mind, / And to his honours and his valiant parts / Did I my soul and fortunes consecrate (Act I, Scene 3). Othellos blackness, his visible difference from everyone around him, is of little importance to Desdemona: she has the power to see him for what he is in a way that even Othello himself cannot. Othello, though he demands ocular proof (Act III, scene 3), is frequently convinced by things he does not see: he strips Cassio of his position as lieutenant based on the story Iago tells; he relies on Iagos story of seeing Cassio wipe his beard with Desdemonas handkerchief (Act III, scene 3); and he believes Cassio to be dead simply because he hears him scream. The action of the play depends heavily on characters not seeing things: Othello accuses his wife although he never sees her infidelity. The Handkerchief: The handkerchief symbolizes different things to different characters. Since the handkerchief was the first gift Desdemona received from Othello, she keeps it about her constantly as a symbol of Othellos love. Iago manipulates the handkerchief so that Othello comes to see it as a symbol of Desdemona herselfher faith and chastity. By taking possession of it, he is able to convert it into evidence of her infidelity. But the handkerchiefs importance to Iago and Desdemona derives from its importance to Othello himself. He tells Desdemona that it was woven by a 200-year-old sibyl, or female prophet, using silk from sacred worms and dye extracted from the hearts of mummified virgins. Othello claims that his mother used it to keep his father faithful to her, so, to him, the handkerchief represents marital fidelity. The pattern of strawberries (dyed with virgins blood) on a white background strongly suggests the bloodstains left on the sheets on a virgins wedding night, so the handkerchief implicitly suggests a guarantee of virginity as well as fidelity. The Willow Song: As she prepares for bed in Act V, Desdemona sings a song

about a woman who is betrayed by her lover. She was taught the song by her mothers maid who suffered a misfortune similar to that of the woman in the song; she even died singing Willow. The songs lyrics suggest that both men and women are unfaithful to one another. To Desdemona, the song seems to represent a melancholy and resigned acceptance of her alienation from Othellos affections, and singing it leads her to question Emilia about the nature and practice of infidelity.

King Lear (1605)

setting: 8th century B.C. Yet, the conflict between parents and children that it foregrounds reflects anxieties that would have been close to home for Shakespeares audience. E.g.: a lawsuit that occurred not long before King Lear was written, in which the eldest of three sisters tried to have her elderly father, Sir Brian Annesley, declared insane so that she could take control of his property. Annesleys youngest daughter, Cordell, successfully defended her father against her sister. the case of William Allen, a mayor of London who was treated very poorly by his three daughters after dividing his wealth among them. the transfer of power from Elizabeth I to James I, which occurred in 1603. Elizabeth had produced no male heir, and the anxiety about who her successor would be was fueled by fears that a dynastic struggle along the lines of the fifteenth-century Wars of the Roses might ensue. King Lear demonstrates how vulnerable parents and noblemen are to the depredations of unscrupulous children and thus how fragile the fabric of Elizabethan society actually was. sources: Geoffrey of Monmouth (History of the English Kings, around 1140) - King Lear (spelt "Leir"), described as a pre-Christian warrior king in what is now southwest England (including Cornwall). The story also appears elsewhere in world folklore (e.g. the Eastern European version Sarea n bucate), as well as in Holinshed, who adds that Cordelia succeeded her father as monarch and was deposed by the sons of her sisters. characters: King Lear; his three daughters Goneril, Regan and Cordelia; the King of France; the Fool; Earl of Kent; Earl of Gloucester; his illegitimate son, Edmund; his legitimate son, Edgar/ Poor Tom; Duke of Cornwall, Regans husband; Duke of Albany, Gonerils husband. King Lear: His basic flaw at the beginning of the play is that he values appearances above reality. He wants to be treated as a king and to enjoy the title, but he does not want to fulfill a kings obligations of governing for the good of his subjects. Similarly, his test of his daughters demonstrates that he values a flattering public display of love over real love. Lear is simply blind to the truth. An important question to ask is whether Lear develops as a character whether he learns from his mistakes and becomes a better and more insightful human being. In some ways the answer is no: he doesnt completely recover his sanity and emerge as a better king. But his values do change over the course of the play. As he realizes his weakness and insignificance in comparison to the forces of the natural world, he becomes a humble and

caring individual. He comes to cherish Cordelia above everything else and to place his own love for Cordelia above every other consideration, to the point that he would rather live in prison with her than rule as a king again. Cordelia: an embodiment of devotion, kindness, beauty, and honesty contrasted with Goneril and Regan, who are neither honest nor loving, and who manipulate their father for their own ends. By refusing to take part in Lears love test at the beginning of the play, Cordelia establishes herself as a repository of virtue. Though offstage throughout most of the play, she is never far from the audiences thoughts, and her beauty is venerably described in religious terms. Cordelias reunion with Lear on the coast, at Dover, marks the apparent restoration of order in the kingdom and the triumph of love and forgiveness over hatred and spite. This fleeting moment of familial happiness makes the devastating finale of King Lear much more cruel, as Cordelia, the personification of kindness and virtue, becomes a literal sacrifice to the heartlessness of an apparently unjust world. Goneril and Regan: largely indistinguishable in their villainy and spite, they are indeed clever; yet, any sympathy that the audience can muster for them evaporates quickly, first when they turn their father out into the storm (Act II) and then when they viciously put out Gloucesters eyes (Act III). Goneril and Regan are personifications of evilthey have no conscience, only appetite. It is this greedy ambition that enables them to crush all opposition and make themselves mistresses of Britain. Ultimately, however, this same appetite brings about their undoing. Their desire for power is satisfied, but both harbor sexual desire for Edmund, which destroys their alliance and eventually leads them to destroy each other. Evil, the play suggests, inevitably turns in on itself. Edmund: the most complex and sympathetic of the plays villains. He is a consummate schemer, a Machiavellian character eager to seize any opportunity and willing to do anything to achieve his goals. However, his ambition is interesting insofar as it reflects not only a thirst for land and power but also a desire for the recognition denied to him by his status as a bastard. His serial treachery is not merely self-interested; it is a conscious rebellion against the social order that has denied him the same status as Gloucesters legitimate son, Edgar. He is the ultimate self-made man, and he is such a cold and capable villain that it is entertaining to watch him work, much as the audience can appreciate the clever wickedness of Iago in Othello. Only at the close of the play does Edmund show a flicker of weakness and has a change of heart. The Fool: The Fool has no power other than his language. He is attached to Lear by a strong bond, although he knows that honouring this bond is physically dangerous, for he is fully aware of the consequences of what Lear is doing in his dealings with his daughters and his headstrong rush away from the castle into the storm. As a fool, his role is to provide a stream of riddling verbal commentary on the action, to expose the truth under the words of others. But his commentary is curiously bitter and sad. He knows that his words are ineffective; they may express important truths, but they will never penetrate Lear's consciousness or do much to change the situation as it unfolds. At a time when the ruling facts of life are clashes of power (military and natural), the Fool's language has no significant effect on the action. The professional manipulator of language counts for very little when so many others are twisting words to suit their own purposes. Faced with the destructive collision of the rival groups and the ensuing suffering and chaos, the Fool does what he can to transform the harshness of events

to some form of linguistic play, not because he has any solution to offer but simply because that's his way of dealing with suffering. So long as one can talk and make jokes (even bitter ones) about experience, one can, to an extent, endure that experience. The sadness of the Fool comes from his awareness of the inadequacy of his language to do anything more than hold back the chaos momentarily and of the necessity of making the attempt, because to stop talking would be to surrender to the meaninglessness of the storm. The Fools death adds to the quantity of needless suffering which has extinguished love, community, and possibilities for beauty and meaning. The music is over, and nothing rests but the silence of total destruction.

Themes. Motifs. Symbols

The Storm: As Lear wanders about a desolate heath in Act III, a terrible storm, strongly but ambiguously symbolic, rages overhead. In part, the storm echoes Lears inner turmoil and mounting madness: it is a physical, turbulent natural reflection of Lears internal confusion. At the same time, the storm embodies the power of nature, which forces the powerless king to recognize his own mortality and human frailty and to cultivate a sense of humility for the first time. The storm may also symbolize some kind of divine justice, as if nature itself is angry about the events in the play. Finally, the storm-engendered chaos also symbolizes the political disarray that has engulfed Lears Britain. Madness: Insanity occupies a central place in the play and is associated with both disorder and hidden wisdom. The Fool, who offers Lear insight in the early sections of the play, offers his counsel in a seemingly mad babble. Later, when Lear himself goes mad, the turmoil in his mind mirrors the chaos that has descended upon his kingdom. At the same time, however, it also provides him with important wisdom by reducing him to his bare humanity, stripped of all royal pretensions. Lear thus learns humility. He is joined in his real madness by Edgars feigned insanity, which also contains nuggets of wisdom. Meanwhile, Edgars time as a supposedly insane beggar hardens him and prepares him to defeat Edmund at the close of the play. Blindness: Gloucesters physical blindness symbolizes the metaphorical blindness that grips both Gloucester and the plays other father figure, Lear. The parallels between the two men are clear: both have loyal and disloyal children, both are blind to the truth, and both end up banishing the loyal children and making the wicked one(s) their heir(s). Only when Gloucester has lost the use of his eyes and Lear has gone mad does each realize his tremendous error. It is appropriate that the play brings them together near Dover in Act IV to commiserate about how their blindness to the truth about their children has cost them dearly. Reconciliation: Darkness and unhappiness pervade King Lear, and the devastating Act V represents one of the most tragic endings in literature. Nevertheless, the play presents the central relationshipthat between Lear and Cordeliaas a dramatic embodiment of true, selfsacrificing love. Rather than despising Lear for banishing her, Cordelia remains devoted, even from afar, and eventually brings an army from a foreign country to rescue him from his tormentors. Lear, meanwhile, learns a tremendously cruel lesson in humility and eventually reaches the point where he can reunite joyfully with Cordelia and experience the balm of her forgiving love. Lears recognition of the error of his ways is an ingredient vital to reconciliation with Cordelia, not because Cordelia feels wronged by him but because he has understood the sincerity and depth of her love for him. His maturation enables him to bring Cordelia back into

his good graces, a testament to loves ability to flourish, even if only fleetingly, amid the horror and chaos that engulf the rest of the play.

Macbeth (1606)
historical context: the reign of James I, who had been James VI of Scotland before he succeeded to the English throne in 1603. James was a patron of Shakespeares acting company, and of all the plays Shakespeare wrote under Jamess reign, Macbeth most clearly reflects the playwrights close relationship with the sovereign. In focusing on Macbeth, a figure from Scottish history, Shakespeare paid homage to his kings Scottish lineage. Additionally, the witches prophecy that Banquo will found a line of kings is a clear nod to Jamess familys claim to have descended from the historical Banquo. In a larger sense, the theme of bad versus good kingship, embodied by Macbeth and Duncan, respectively, would have resonated at the royal court, where James was busy developing his English version of the theory of divine right. characters: King Duncan; his generals, Macbeth and Banquo; the three witches; Lady Macbeth; Duncans sons Malcolm and Donalbain; Banquos son Fleance; Macduff. Macbeth: The initial impression is that Macbeth is a brave and capable warrior. His interaction with the witches reveals, however, that his physical courage is joined by a consuming ambition and a tendency to self-doubtthe prediction that he will be king brings him joy, but it also creates inner turmoil. These three attributes bravery, ambition, and selfdoubt struggle for mastery of Macbeth throughout the play. Shakespeare uses Macbeth to show the terrible effects that ambition and guilt can have on a man who lacks strength of character. We may classify Macbeth as irrevocably evil, but his weak character separates him from Shakespeares great villainsIago in Othello, Richard III in Richard III, Edmund in King Learwho are all strong enough to conquer guilt and self-doubt. Macbeth, great warrior though he is, is ill equipped for the psychic consequences of crime. Before he kills Duncan, Macbeth is plagued by worry and almost aborts the crime. After the murder, he fluctuates between fits of fevered action, in which he plots a series of murders to secure his throne, and moments of terrible guilt (as when Banquos ghost appears) and absolute pessimism (after his wifes death, when he seems to succumb to despair). These fluctuations reflect the tragic tension within Macbeth: he is at once too ambitious to allow his conscience to stop him from murdering his way to the top and too conscientious to be happy with himself as a murderer. As things fall apart for him at the end of the play, he seems almost relievedwith the English army at his gates, he can finally return to life as a warrior, and he displays a kind of reckless bravado as his enemies surround him and drag him down. Unlike many of Shakespeares other tragic heroes, Macbeth never seems to contemplate suicide. Instead, he goes down fighting, bringing the play full circle: it begins with Macbeth winning on the battlefield and ends with him dying in combat. Lady Macbeth: one of Shakespeares most famous and frightening female characters. She is stronger, more ruthless, and more ambitious than her husband. She seems fully aware of this and knows that she will have to push Macbeth into committing murder. At one point, she wishes that she were not a woman so that she could do it herself. This theme of the relationship between gender and power is key to Lady Macbeths character: her husband implies that she is a masculine soul inhabiting a female body, which seems to link masculinity

to ambition and violence. Like the witches, Lady Macbeth uses female methods of achieving powerthat is, manipulationto further her supposedly male ambitions. Women, the play implies, can be as ambitious and cruel as men, yet social constraints deny them the means to pursue these ambitions on their own. Lady Macbeth manipulates her husband with remarkable effectiveness, overriding all his objections; when he hesitates to murder, she repeatedly questions his manhood until he feels that he must commit murder to prove himself. Lady Macbeths remarkable strength of will persists through the murder of the kingit is she who steadies her husbands nerves immediately after the crime has been perpetrated. Afterward, however, she begins a slow slide into madnessjust as ambition affects her more strongly than Macbeth before the crime, so does guilt plague her more strongly afterward. By the close of the play, she has been reduced to sleepwalking through the castle, desperately trying to wash away an invisible bloodstain. Significantly, she (apparently) kills herself, signaling her total inability to deal with the legacy of her crimes. The three witches: Referred to as the weird sisters by many of the characters they lurk like dark thoughts and unconscious temptations to evil. In part, the mischief they cause stems from their supernatural powers, but mainly it is the result of their understanding of the weaknesses of their specific interlocutorsthey play upon Macbeths ambition like puppeteers. These witches exist as constant reminders of the potential for evil in the human imagination. They are ineluctably part of the natural world, there to seduce anyone who, like Macbeth, lets his imagination flirt with evil possibilities. They have no particular abode and might pop up anywhere, momentarily, ready to incite an eternal desire for evil in the human imagination, the evil which arises from a desire to violate our fellow human beings in order to shape the world to our own deep emotional needs. The audience is left to ask whether the witches are independent agents toying with human lives, or agents of fate, whose prophecies are only reports of the inevitable. The witches bear a striking and obviously intentional resemblance to the Fates, female characters in both Norse and Greek mythology who weave the fabric of human lives and then cut the threads to end them. Some of their prophecies seem self-fulfilling. For example, it is doubtful that Macbeth would have murdered his king without the push given by the witches predictions. In other cases, though, their prophecies are just remarkably accurate readings of the futureit is hard to see Birnam Wood coming to Dunsinane as being self-fulfilling in any way. The play offers no easy answers. Instead, Shakespeare keeps the witches well outside the limits of human comprehension. They embody an unreasoning, instinctive evil. Shakespeare has the witches speak in rhyming couplets (their most famous line is probably Double, double, toil and trouble, / Fire burn and cauldron bubble in IV.1.1011), which separates them from the other characters, who mostly speak in blank verse. the difference between kingship and tyranny: In the play, Duncan is always referred to as a king, while Macbeth soon becomes known as the tyrant. The difference between the two types of rulers seems to be expressed in a conversation that occurs in Act IV, scene 3, when Macduff meets Malcolm in England. In order to test Macduffs loyalty to Scotland, Malcolm pretends that he would make an even worse king than Macbeth. He tells Macduff of his reproachable qualitiesamong them a thirst for personal power and a violent temperament, both of which seem to characterize Macbeth perfectly. On the other hand,

Malcolm says, The king-becoming graces/ [are] justice, verity, temprance, stableness, / Bounty, perseverance, mercy, [and] lowliness (IV.3.9293). The model king, then, offers the kingdom an embodiment of order and justice, but also comfort and affection. Under him, subjects are rewarded according to their merits, as when Duncan makes Macbeth thane of Cawdor after Macbeths victory over the invaders. Most important, the king must be loyal to Scotland above his own interests. Macbeth, by contrast, brings only chaos to Scotland symbolized by the bad weather and bizarre supernatural eventsand offers no real justice, only a habit of capriciously murdering those he sees as a threat. As the embodiment of tyranny, he must be overcome by Malcolm so that Scotland can have a true king once more.

THE ROMAN PLAYS

Titus Andronicus (1589)
Portraying events supposedly derived from the history of the late Roman empire, but which are entirely fictitious, the play clings barely to the genre of both history play and Roman play. It also bears some elements of a tragedy, but can make little claim of offering its audience catharsis (i.e. the purging of the emotions or relieving of emotional tensions). The best description of the play would be that of a revenge tragedy. characters: Titus Andronicus, a Roman general; his brother, Marcus Andronicus; his sons Lucius, Quintus, Martius, Mutius; young Lucius, Tituss grandson; Lavinia, Tituss daughter; Tamora, Queen of the Goths; her sons Alarbus, Demetrius, Chiron; Aaron, the Moor; Saturninus, son of the late Emperor of Rome; his brother Bassianus, Lavinias husband.

Themes and Motifs

the contest for power: The opening speeches of Saturninus and Bassianus represent a Rome that is deeply divided between tradition and virtue: must Rome respect the lineage of the eldest son Saturninus, or should virtuous Bassianus be made its emperor? Titus steps in on the side of tradition, but in doing so he explicitly refuses to set a head on headless Rome (I.1.186), leaving Rome rudderless. Romes fractious status is matched by the subsequent dismemberment of the characters (e.g. see Lavinias case in particular). If the play is understood as a systematic deconstruction and critique of Roman society and ways, then this act displays the first crack. The contrast between Roman civilization and Goth barbarism adds to the contrast between traditional right and virtue (as embodied by Saturninus and Bassianus respectively). Roman rituals are considered the bulwark of civilisation. Yet, when Tamora pleads for her sons life, Titus does not hesitate to slay him; moreover, later on, he kills his own son, Mutius, in the name of honour. The seemingly simplistic distinction between the Romans as civilised and the Goths as barbarous is thus complicated, and we are made to question the violence at the heart of the Roman civilisation. the revenge feud between Titus and Tamora: The scenes that present the murder of Bassianus and the rape of Lavinia by Tamoras sons concentrate on the mechanism of revenge. Significantly, Aaron, the undenied and almost two-dimensional villain of the play, is shown as the foremost agent of vengeance. Everything that happens at this point is a direct result of Aarons planning or coaching. Unlike Titus and Tamora, who are given ample reasons for their actions, Aaron is all action and no motivation. Such representation aids in furthering an unquestioned racial stereotype of the Moor. Here, diabolical vengeance is linked to the wilderness. As opposed to the distinctly factionalized Rome where Bassianus and Saturninus staged their civilised war of rhetoric, the wilderness is a place without walls or dimensions, where desires and motives take on a fluid

freedom. What was constrained by the rigidity of the court is given full villainous run here. In pursuing their black ends, humans slide through bestial forms as easily as their desires are realised; this is symbolised in the words of the panicking Lavinia, who sees her attackers as lions, tigers, and ravens. When Titus prostrates himself and makes a plea for his sons life to a non-existent audience, he represents the ultimate demise of Rome. Together with the consuming sorrow (III.1.61) of the abused Lavinia, this lays the foundation for a plot that increasingly concentrates on a circle of revenge that is rapacious and all-consuming. This all-consuming cycle ultimately finds concrete form in Tituss final scheme for retribution, in which the consuming of men is transformed from the metaphorical to the literal, and Tituss enemies are forced to eat their offspring. the pit: Aarons bag of gold (later on taken as proof that Tituss sons were going to pay a huntsman to kill Bassianus) is buried underground; Bassianuss corpse is thrown into a pit; Quintus and Martius are trapped in the same; and Lavinia has her hole violated. The constant reference to the hole as a mark of death, as a sign of the tomb, is curious, particularly because so much attention is also drawn to the fertile holes of the two main female characters (Tamora seduces Aaron; Lavinia is raped). There is a certain misogynistic identification of women and their sexual appetites with the mysterious and wild terror of the earth. The terror of the hole, embodied in the earth as a grave, and in the body as a sign of feminine danger, is continued throughout the play, and culminates in the killing mouth of the mother who devours her own sons, becoming the grave and negating her fertility all at once. Lavinia attacker/victim of rape?: Considering that Lavinia spends most of the play mute, the few words she addresses Tamora when she discovers her in the arms of her lover Aaron are particularly harsh. Critics have found this unappealing side of Lavinia to be an unforgivable fault, interfering with her characters role as a tragic heroine. For the insults she unleashes on Tamora, some even believe that her rape is fitting retribution. However, others argue that her behaviour is completely in keeping with the standards and behaviour of ladies during the Elizabethan era, and that taking offence at her coarseness is just the prudish reaction of a contemporary reader. Because of the overall contradictory representation of Lavinia, as victim and as attacker, she becomes a good study of the place and agency of women in the Rome of Titus Andronicus. Some of the stage directions of Act II read as follows: Enter...Lavinia, her hands cut off, and her tongue cut out, and ravished. If one adds to this the horrifying effects of the literal dramatizations in Elizabethan theatres (with fake blood and stumps), it is easy to see why critics decry Titus Andronicus as a play of uncontrolled and unnecessary excess. Not only is there excess in the atrocities committed upon Lavinia, but this excess is also manifested in the text. First of all, we have the physical body of Lavinia as testament to the rape. Next, we have the gloating insults of Chiron and Demetrius, who explain to the audience what they have done to her and why. Finally, we have the moving speech of Marcus when he encounters his niece. Therefore, there is an excess of language at work which glazes over the horrific effects of this rape. The scene in which Titus feeds the crippled Lavinia completes the textualisation of her body begun by Marcus in Act II as she is described as a map of woe (III.2.12), whose sign language must be interpreted. Lavinias role is very important and can be considered as a

symbol of theatricality in the play. She becomes central to the play (as a reason for revenge) just when she loses her ability to speak and is left with no communicational means but her gestures. This draws our attention to the fact that this is a play to be staged, and that Lavinia is to be looked at and not just heard. The opening scenes of Act IV show how words are used as tools and weapons in the play. In the dramatic disclosure of Lavinias rape we see the climax of the concept of her body as text. Her signs are too confusing for her father and uncle, and she must resort to the words of Ovid to tell the truth. In essence, words and a knowledge of the myths they spin constitute a strength because they allow the characters to communicate, and thereby to attack, in a world of deceit. In a sense, if heroism is based on anything in this play, it is based on wit and knowledge of the classical texts. Racial difference: Aarons statement that he will have his soul black like his face (III.1.204) can be read in two contrasting ways. It can be seen as locating Aarons evil within his blackness, as popularly accepted in racial stereotypes. Or, it can be taken as proof that his villainy is a deliberate choice rather than the natural characteristic of a Moor. Either his soul is inherently black because he is black, or he decides to make his soul black because he has been treated so badly for simply having black skin. In defending his son, Aaron defends the colour that has for so long caused him to be ostracized: Coal-black is better than another hue / In that it scorns to bear another hue (IV.2.99-100). In these lines we gain a better sense of Aaron as the victim of a racially biased society, and a possible insight as to why he is set on a path of evil. His immediate attachment to his son, his new and only bond with the rest of the world, reveals just how alone and unallied he has been throughout the play. Although he has played lover to the queen, coach to her sons, and foe to the Andronici, he has committed his acts solely for his own pleasure. In a sense, there is honour to what he says about the honesty of the black hue: it is one thing that, by its nature, remains itself. While all the other characters are constantly in disguise, shifting alliances for their own interests, Aaron wears his villainy on his sleeve, and is loyal, at least, to that. This scene is often used to make comparisons between Aaron, Tamora, and Titus in the matter of parenthood. Tamora herself wants her lovechild with Aaron eliminated, while Titus has killed some of his children with his own hands. In comparison, Aarons fierce love for his child seems to mark him as a much better parent than both Titus and Tamora. In Act V, Aaron gets an opportunity to flaunt his evil through long, uninterrupted speeches that reveal his blasphemy, his absence of scruples, and his utter lack of regret about anything he has done. Not only does he explain his own part in every atrocity that has been committed, he heaps insult on injury by describing how much he delighted at the suffering of his victims. The excess of his violence is matched by the voracity of his appetite for wrongdoing. This scene can only inspire horror in an audience, effectively erasing any sympathy one might have mustered for Aaron as a paternal figure. the play-within-the-play: Tamoras little costume-show for Titus functions as a playwithin-a-play, drawing attention to the theatricality of Titus. What is interesting here is that, in disguising themselves as Revenge, Rape, and Murder, Tamora and her sons in fact assume the abstract roles they have occupied throughout the play. In taking on disguises, Tamora and her sons reveal their true selves, while Titus proves himself a master at hiding his intentions. The final scene: The last scene is filled with an almost obscene number of corpses.

And yet, after study, it is clear that every one of the deaths here is necessary to clear the way for a new Rome. At the end of this scene, we almost have the same situation as in Act I, Scene 1. Titus is replaced by his eldest son Lucius as the possible new emperor, and the most serious conflicts (those between Bassianus and Saturninus and between Titus and Tamora) are no more. So profound is the carnage that the only people that remain are the whole and unscarred characters such as Marcus and Lucius; Rome has been blasted clean, and the cycle of revenge seems to have destroyed itself. Still, it is hard to tell if Shakespeare means to leave us with a positive conclusion or not. Marcus says, O let me teach you how to knit again / This scattered corn into one mutual sheaf, / These broken limbs again into one body (V.3.69-71). This states conclusively that the Rome of this play has been one fragmented body throughout. Does a new Rome empty of body fragments symbolise an intact and complete Rome, or a Rome that has lost its most important parts? Various critics have taken Luciuss lines to herald a better age for Rome, but also as acknowledgement that this is a Rome founded on rape and murder, a recognition that even Young Lucius has been tainted by all the crimes he has witnessed. Luciuss last words, after all, are still concerned with execution. Ones answer to the question of whether the play ends positively or negatively will determine how one values Titus Andronicus as an artistic work. Is there any uplifting or cathartic element to this tragedy at all? Or does it leave its audience with too few lessons and too much blood?

Julius Caesar (1599-1600)

historical context: In 44 B.C., Rome was the centre of an empire stretching from Britain to North Africa and from Persia to Spain. Yet even as the empire grew stronger, so, too, did the force of the dangers threatening its existence: Rome suffered from constant infighting between ambitious military leaders and the far weaker senators to whom they supposedly owed allegiance. The empire also suffered from a sharp division between citizens, who were represented in the senate, and the increasingly underrepresented plebeian masses. A succession of men aspired to become the absolute rulers of Rome, but only Julius Caesar seemed likely to achieve this status. Those citizens who favoured more democratic rule feared that Caesars power would lead to the enslavement of Roman citizens by one of their own. Therefore, a group of conspirators came together and assassinated Caesar. However, the assassination failed to put an end to the power struggles dividing the empire and civil war erupted shortly thereafter. In an age when censorship would have limited direct commentary on the English peoples worries related to Elizabeth Is nearing death and the lack of any heirs, Shakespeare could nevertheless use the story of Caesar to comment on the political situation of his day. sources: Thomas Norths translation of Plutarchs Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans characters: Julius Caesar; the Triumvirs Octavius Caesar, Mark Antony and Lepidus; the Senators Cicero, Publius and Pompilius Lena; the conspirators Marcus Brutus, Cassius, Casca, Trebonius, Ligarius, Decius, Metellus Cimber and Cinna; the Tribunes Flavius and Marullus; Cinna the poet; Pindarus, servant to Cassius; Calphurnia, Caesar's wife; Portia, Brutuss wife; a Soothsayer. Brutus. Brutus emerges as the most complex character in Julius Caesar and is also

the plays tragic hero. In his soliloquies, the audience gains insight into the complexities of his motives. He is a powerful public figure, but he also appears as a husband, a master to his servants, a dignified military leader, and a loving friend. The conflicting value systems that battle with each other in the play as a whole are enacted on a microcosmic level in Brutuss mind. Even after Brutus got involved in Caesars assassination with the other members of the conspiracy, questions remain as to whether, in light of his friendship with Caesar, the murder was a noble, decidedly selfless act or proof of a truly evil callousness, a gross indifference to the ties of friendship and a failure to be moved by the power of a truly great man. Brutuss rigid idealism is both his greatest virtue and his most deadly flaw. In the world of the play, where self-serving ambition seems to dominate all other motivations, Brutus lives up to Antonys elegiac description of him as the noblest of Romans. However, his commitment to principle repeatedly leads him to make miscalculations: wanting to curtail violence, he ignores Cassiuss suggestion that the conspirators kill Antony as well as Caesar. In another moment of nave idealism, he again ignores Cassiuss advice and allows Antony to speak a funeral oration over Caesars body. As a result, Brutus forfeits the authority of having the last word on the murder and thus allows Antony to incite the plebeians to riot against him and the other conspirators. Brutus later endangers his good relationship with Cassius by selfrighteously condemning what he sees as dishonourable fund-raising tactics on Cassiuss part. In all of these episodes, Brutus acts out of a desire to limit the self-serving aspects of his actions; ironically, however, in each incident he dooms the very cause that he seeks to promote, thus serving no one at all. Julius Caesar. The conspirators charge Caesar with ambition, and his behaviour substantiates this judgment: he does vie for absolute power over Rome, revelling in the homage he receives from others and in his conception of himself as a figure who will live on forever in mens minds. However, his faith in his own permanencein the sense of both his loyalty to principles and his fixture as a public institutioneventually proves his undoing. At first, he stubbornly refuses to heed the nightmares of his wife, Calphurnia, and the supernatural omens pervading the atmosphere. Though he is eventually persuaded not to go to the Senate, Caesar ultimately lets his ambition get the better of him, as the prospect of being crowned king proves too glorious to resist. Caesars conflation of his public image with his private self helps bring about his death, since he mistakenly believes that the immortal status granted to his public self somehow protects his mortal body. Still, in many ways, Caesars faith that he is eternal proves valid by the end of the play: in Act V, scene 3, Brutus attributes his and Cassiuss misfortunes to Caesars power reaching from beyond the grave. Caesars aura seems to affect the general outcome of events in a mystic manner, while also inspiring Octavius and Antony and strengthening their determination. As Octavius ultimately assumes the title Caesar, Caesars permanence is indeed established in some respect. Mark Antony. Antony proves strong in all the ways in which Brutus proves weak. His impulsive, improvisatory nature serves him perfectly, first to persuade the conspirators that he is on their side, thus gaining their leniency, and then to persuade the plebeians of the conspirators injustice, thus gaining the masses political support. Not too scrupulous to stoop to deceit and duplicity, as Brutus claims to be, Antony proves himself a consummate politician, using gestures and skilled rhetoric to his advantage. He responds to subtle cues among both his

nemeses and his allies to know exactly how he must conduct himself at each particular moment in order to gain the most advantage. In both his eulogy for Caesar and the play as a whole, Antony knows how to tailor his words and actions to his audiences desires. Unlike Brutus, who prides himself on acting solely with respect to virtue and blinding himself to his personal concerns, Antony never separates his private affairs from his public actions.

Themes and Motifs

fate versus free will. Cassius refuses to accept Caesars rising power and deems a belief in fate to be nothing more than a form of passivity or cowardice. He urges a return to a more noble, self-possessed attitude toward life, blaming his and Brutuss submissive stance not on a predestined plan but on their failure to assert themselves. Ultimately, the play seems to support a philosophy in which fate and freedom maintain a delicate coexistence. Caesar recognizes that certain events lie beyond human control; to crouch in fear of them is to enter a paralysis equal to, if not worse than, death. It is to surrender any capacity for freedom and agency that one might actually possess. Indeed, perhaps to face death head-on, to die bravely and honourably, is Caesars best course: in the end, Brutus interprets his and Cassiuss defeat as the work of Caesars ghostnot just his apparition, but also the force of the peoples devotion to him, the strong legacy of a man who refused any fear of fate and, in his disregard of fate, seems to have transcended it. public versus private. Julius Caesar is a political tragedy exploring the relation between public and private virtue, between personal morality and political efficiency, between innocence and action. Much of the plays tragedy stems from the characters neglect of private feelings and loyalties in favour of what they believe to be the public good. Similarly, characters confuse their private selves with their public selves, hardening and dehumanizing themselves or transforming themselves into ruthless political machines. Brutus rebuffs his wife, Portia, when she pleads with him to confide in her; believing himself to be acting on the peoples will, he continues to conspire against Caesar, despite their close friendship. Brutus puts aside his personal loyalties and shuns thoughts of Caesar the man, his friend; instead, he acts on what he believes to be the publics wishes and kills Caesar the leader, the imminent dictator. Cassius can be seen as a man who has gone to the extreme in cultivating his public persona. Caesar, describing his distrust of Cassius, tells Antony that the problem with Cassius is his lack of a private lifehis seeming refusal to acknowledge his own sensibilities or to nurture his own spirit. Such a man, Caesar fears, will let nothing interfere with his ambition. Indeed, Cassius lacks all sense of personal honour and shows himself to be a ruthless schemer. Ultimately, neglecting private sentiments to follow public concerns brings Caesar to his death. Although Caesar does briefly agree to stay home in order to please Calphurnia, who has dreamed of his murder, he gives way to ambition when Decius tells him that the senators plan to offer him the crown. Caesars public self again takes precedence. Tragically, he no longer sees the difference between his omnipotent, immortal public image and his vulnerable human body. Just preceding his death, Caesar refuses Artemidoruss pleas to speak with him, saying that he gives last priority to his most personal concerns. He thus endangers himself by believing that the strength of his public self will protect his private self. inflexibility versus compromise. Both Brutus and Caesar are stubborn, rather

inflexible people who ultimately suffer fatally for this. In the plays aggressive political landscape, individuals succeed through adaptability, bargaining, and compromise. Brutuss rigid though honourable ideals leave him open for manipulation by Cassius. He believes so thoroughly in the purpose of the assassination that he does not perceive the need for excessive political manoeuvring to justify the murder. Equally resolute, Caesar prides himself on his steadfastness; yet this constancy helps bring about his death, as he refuses to heed ill omens and goes willingly to the Senate, into the hands of his murderers. Antony proves perhaps the most adaptable of all the politicians: while his speech to the Roman citizens centres on Caesars generosity towards each citizen, he later searches for ways to turn these funds into cash in order to raise an army against Brutus and Cassius. Although he gains power by offering to honour Caesars will and provide the citizens their rightful money, it becomes clear that ethical concerns will not prevent him from using the funds in a more politically expedient manner. Antony is a successful politicianyet the question of morality remains. There seems to be no way to reconcile firm moral principles with success in politics in Shakespeares rendition of ancient Rome; thus each character struggles towards a different solution. rhetoric and power. Julius Caesar gives detailed consideration to the relationship between rhetoric and power. The ability to make things happen by words alone is the most powerful type of authority. Early in the play, it is established that Caesar has this type of absolute authority. Words also serve to move hearts and minds. Antony cleverly convinces the conspirators of his desire to side with them: under the guise of a gesture of friendship, Antony actually marks the conspirators for vengeance. In the Forum, Brutus speaks to the crowd and appeals to its love of liberty in order to justify the killing of Caesar. He also makes ample reference to the honour in which he is generally esteemed so as to validate further his explanation of the deed. Antony likewise wins the crowds favour, using persuasive rhetoric to whip the masses into a frenzy so great that they dont even realize the fickleness of their favour. women and wives. Calphurnia and Portia function primarily as symbols of the private, domestic realm. Both women plead with their husbands to be more aware of their private needs and feelings. Caesar and Brutus rebuff the pleas of their wives, however; not only do they prioritize public matters but also actively disregard their private emotions and intuitions. As such, Calphurnia and Portia are powerless figures, willing though unable to help and comfort Caesar and Brutus. misinterpretations and misreadings. Much of the play deals with the characters failures to interpret correctly the omens that they encounter. Thus, the night preceding Caesars appearance at the Senate is full of portents, but no one reads them accurately: Cassius takes them to signify the danger that Caesars impending coronation would bring to the state, when, if anything, they warn of the destruction that Cassius himself threatens. There are calculated misreadings as well: Cassius manipulates Brutus into joining the conspiracy by means of forged letters, knowing that Brutuss trusting nature will cause him to accept the letters as authentic pleas from the Roman people. The circumstances of Cassiuss death represent another instance of misinterpretation. Pindaruss erroneous conclusion that Titinius has been captured by the enemy, when in fact Titinius has reunited with friendly forces, is the piece of misinformation that prompts Cassius to seek death. Thus, in the world of politics portrayed in Julius Caesar, the inability to read

people and events leads to downfall; conversely, the ability to do so is the key to survival. With so much ambition and rivalry, the ability to gauge the publics opinion as well as the resentment or loyalty of ones fellow politicians can guide one to success. Antony proves masterful at recognizing his situation, and his accurate reading of the crowds emotions during his funeral oration for Caesar allows him to win the masses over to his side.

Antony and Cleopatra (1607)

main characters: the Triumvirs Mark Antony, Octavius Caesar, and Lepidus; Sextus Pompeius; Antonys closest friend, Enobarbus; Caesars friends, Mecaenas, Agrippa and Dolabella; Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt; Octavia, Caesars sister and Antonys wife; Charmian and Iras, Cleopatras attendants. Antony: The movement to and fro between Rome and Egypt (with Athens in between), the devices Shakespeare uses to suggest that the whole Roman world is involved in Antonys struggle between Roman loyalty and Egyptian magic, the evocative suggestions of the old Antony (in Julius Caesar) contrasting with the Antony in this play the nemesis of the sensual man (Granville-Barker) demonstrate, among other features of the play, Shakespeares superb craftsmanship. From the very beginning, the contrast between the Roman and the Egyptian view is emphasised: seen through Roman eyes, Antony once our general and the triple pillar of the world transformed/ Into a strumpets fool. When summons comes from Rome and he learns of Fulvias death and the coming war, Antony is again struck by a Roman thought and returns to Rome, sealing his alliance with Octavius Caesar by marrying his sister Octavia. Yet, once the military conflict ends in cynical truce, Antony will come back to Egypt: the sensual man belongs in Alexandria. The second movement of the play that follows Antonys return to Cleopatra and the ultimate breach between him and Octavius Caesar shows the aging rou and the temperamental sensualist facing the vengeance of the cold and confident Octavius. There is never any doubt as to who will win: Antony, influenced by Cleopatras foolish exhibitionism, weakly decides to fight by sea instead of on land, and when Cleopatra joins the fleet with her flagship only to flee when the battle begins and draw Antony after, the stage is set for an explosion of passionate self-contempt on Antonys part which shows at last that he has lost his grip. He gives way to self-pity and sentimental speeches to his servants. A temporary improvement of his fortunes brings back the old Antony, but it is short-lived. In the sea fight that follows, Antony believes that Cleopatra has deliberately betrayed him and bursts into impotent rage, only to shift to rich poetry when he receives the fake message of Cleopatras suicide and he realizes that the end has come; in following Cleopatra to the grave he is reconciling Rome and Egypt, for suicide is the Roman way out. When he dies at last in Cleopatras arms, he boasts that he does not basely die,/ Not cowardly put off my helmet to/ My countryman a Roman by a Roman/ Valiantly vanquishd. Cleopatra: When first abandoned by Antony, Cleopatra tries all her tricks to keep him in Egypt, but when she sees he is determined to go, puts on her noblest bearing to become, no longer the shrew or the temperamental lover, but his protecting goddess of Victory.

Her lament over Antonys death raises this passion between a middle-aged sensualist and a royal prostitute to a higher level. She realises that the world for her is destroyed and, at the same time, that she is, after all, but a mortal woman with ordinary human passions. Her problem is how to come to terms with what remains of life. Shakespeare does not hurry to elevate Cleopatra to tragic stature. The final movement of the play is Cleopatra against Octavius Caesar: she tries every way of finding out what Caesar means to do with her, and humiliates herself in the process. But at last, she learns from Donabella that she is to be taken to Rome and exhibited there; then and only then does she find the courage to follow Antony in the Roman way. She has played for a while the role of the low trickster apparently interested only in saving what she has left, but now that the game is finally up, she does admit that, without Antony, life is impossible. In that admission and in the splendid poetic gesture of her suicide, she is redeemed at last into tragedy. She finds true pride and dignity, and the quiet humour that sees over the other side of death without panic or selfpity. Yet, she does not lose her original character: the language of her speech becomes ritualistic without losing nothing of its sensuality. The theme of this tragedy is not the conflict between love and duty that John Dryden later made of it in his All for Love. True, Shakespeare makes clear that the fate of the civilised world is involved in Antonys decisions, but the conflict between public duty and private passion is not his major interest, nor is he chiefly concerned with the conflict between the Roman and Egyptian ways of life, though this, too, is an element in the play and one of the themes suggested by the pattern of its imagery. Cleopatra is shown as shrewish, hysterical, sadistic, dishonest, and cowardly, as well as beautiful, queenly, and heroic. Antony is selfish and fatuous as well as generous and noble. Are they great lovers or merely great sensualists? They are both experienced in the ways of sexual pleasure and often talk as though that is all that love involves. Yet this is far from being a disillusioned or a cynical play. We are continually fascinated by the richness and variety of character and the way in which history is bound with psychology. There is little pity or fear in the play, but rather a lively human curiosity throughout. And the poetry keeps enlarging the moment, showing experience as ever livelier and richer. We watch fascinated as Antony, most Roman when most enslaved by Egypt, goes to his self-inflicted death, and then follow Cleopatras twistings and turnings with ever increasing interest and wonder. We make no new moral judgment on either because that is decided at the beginning and is never in question: they are both behaving badly, and their sophisticated passion does not excuse them. But there is a wonder in it all, and Cleopatra in her death finds the objective correlative of that wonder. The sensual life ends in a blaze of ritual pageantry: it has its own amoral nobility.

ROMANCES
Shakespeares Third Period of Creation
Combining elements of both comedy and tragedy (as a matter of fact, another term for romance is tragicomedy Abrams, 1999: 325), Shakespeares romances namely Pericles, Prince of Tyre (1606-1608), Cymbeline (1609-1610), The Winters Tale (1610-1611) and The Tempest (1611) share the following features: a redemptive plotline with a happy ending involving the re-uniting of long-separated family members; magic and other fantastical elements; a deus-ex-machina (a rather forced and improbable device by which the author resolves the plot), often manifesting as a Roman god (such as Jupiter in Cymbeline or Diana in Pericles); a mixture of civilised and pastoral scenes (such as the gentry and the island residents in The Tempest); ...and the poetry is a return to the lyrical style of the early plays, though more mellow and profound. (Halliday, 1964: 419)

Pericles, Prince of Tyre (1606-1608)

a play of composite authorship (only acts III, IV and V were unanimously ascribed to Shakespeare) source: Apollonius of Tyre, a widely dispersed tale of Greek origin told in Gowers Confessio Amantis (Gower himself appears as a character, assuming the function of the Chorus, giving in a somewhat medieval speech, the initial and the concluding words of each act of the play) main characters: Pericles, Prince of Tyre; Antiochus, King of Antioch; Antiochuss daughter; Thaliard, an assassin and a lord of Antioch; Helicanus, a lord from Tyre; Cleon, the governor of Tharsus; Dionyza, his wife; Simonides, king of Pentapolis; Thaisa, his daughter; Lord Cerimon of Ephesus; Marina, Pericles and Thaisas daughter; Leonine, Dionyzas servant; Pander, his wife Bawd, and their worker Boult three bawds in a brothel in Mytilene; Lysimachus, governor of Mytilene; Goddess Diana. Plot: simple, but, at the same time, crowding numerous strange and sensational events: Pericless miraculous survival after the shipwreck in Pentapolis, his marriage with Thaisa, King Simonidess daughter, the storm in which Thaisa gives birth to their child, Marina, and is thought to have died, Marinas ordeals caused by Dionyzas jealousy, her being kidnapped by pirates and sold to a brothel in Mitylene,

 her wonderful love story with Lysimachus, the governor, and her being miraculously reunited with both her father and her supposedly dead mother Thaisa (who had become a priestess in Dianas temple).

Central plot lines:

Pericless trials his sea-voyages: a symbol of Everymans Progress through the perils and frustrations of life to a peaceful harbour. Marinas trails: lost and found again, subjected to the corrupting influence of the brothel, yet preserving always her shining innocence. Major symbols: the sea: a symbol of purification, of death by water which precedes resurrection. (Daiches, 1991: 297) Pericles is a symbolic play, a religious play, dealing with death and resurrection, with ritual purification and the redemptive power of innocence. (Daiches, 1991: 298) other features: mask-like dancing, song and instrumental music, dumb-shows > motifs taken up and developed in the subsequent romances: > the supposedly dead wifes resurrection theme (The Winters Tale); > the discovery of the lost child which is instrumental in the reconciliation of the parents (The Winters Tale); > the storm causing separation and later reunion (The Tempest).

Cymbeline (1609-1610)
sources: folklore, a fragment of British history freely adapted from Holinshed and a story from Boccaccios Decameron (of a husband, making a wager on his wifes virtue, tricked by his friend into believing that the friend has succeeded in seducing her). Extensively drawing on fairy tale and mythical elements (reminiscent of the ancient Celtic myths). main characters: Cymbeline, king of Britain; Imogen, his daughter (disguised as Fidele); Cymbelines new wife, the Queen; Cloten, the Queens son; Posthumus Leonatus, Imogens husband; Philario, Posthumuss Italian friend; Iachimo, Philarios friend; Pisanio, Posthumuss servant; Belarius, a banished lord; Guiderius and Arviragus, Imogens brothers and the kings lost sons; doctor Cornelius; Caius Lucius, Roman general.

Fairy tale elements:

Imogen, the princess who marries [the Roman Leonatus Posthumus] against her parents wishes; Cymbelines Queen, the wicked stepmother; the potion which brings apparent death but really only sends the drinker into a prolonged swoon; the Snow White theme of the apparently dead girl covered with flowers by her simple companions. (Daiches, 1991: 298)

Imogen: pure Shakespeare, idealized yet real, one of those spirited heroines whom he created so happily in his middle comedies and who here is subjected to much more grievous trials than anything which befell Rosalind and Viola. (Daiches, 1991: 298) Iachimo: a case of small-minded pride and perverted ingenuity (Daiches, 1991: 299) Cloten: the sadistic boor (Daiches, 1991: 299)

Major themes of the play:

betrayed confidence (without reaching, however, the tragic dimension of Othellos conflict); justice satisfied in the end by the show of innocence triumphant, emerging victorious from the darkest possible circumstances, the repentance of the villain Iachimo and the death of the wicked Queen. Salvation comes by magic or coincidence: Imogens apparent rising from the dead, like Hermiones in The Winter's Tale, becomes a symbol of complete regeneration, an entrance into a brave new world in which we cannot literally believe.

The Winters Tale (1610-1611)

source: Robert Greenes prose pastoral romance, Pandosto, or the Triumph of Time main characters: King Leontes of Sicilia; King Polixenes of Bohemia; Hermione, Leontess wife; Camillo, a Lord from Sicilia; Paulina, the wife of Lord Antigonus of Sicilia and Hermiones loyal friend; Mamillius, Leontes and Hermiones son; Perdita, Leontes and Hermiones daughter; an old shepherd; Florizel, Polixeness son, Autolycus, a local rogue.

Themes, motifs, symbols:

the ritual of redemption: undoing at least partly the evil once done by symbolic trickery, i.e., Hermione is not really dead, but hidden by Paulina, while the infant daughter is saved and brought up as a shepherdess. The play has overtones of pagan myth: Perditas adventures counterpart those of Persephone and her mother, Demeter, Perditas apparent death and prolonged disappearance parallel Persephones departure into the lower world at the onset of winter and her joyous reunion with her mother is like the blooming of all nature at Persephones return to her earth-mother. the mythical coast of Bohemia: one of the most charming pastorals descending from Sidneys Arcadia; a fairyland, yet real enough in its pastoral atmosphere, its sheepshearing feast and flowered countryside populated by country folk (e.g. Autolycus) with a healthy appetite for songs and open-mouth eagerness. The freshness and beauty of the Florizel and Perdita scenes have been noted by everyone who has ever discussed the play: the idyllic pastoral note is sounded here more splendidly and movingly than anywhere else in English literature, yet the psychology the psychology of young love is real, and the countryside the real English countryside. (Daiches, 1991: 301) Hermiones resurrection: The playwright deliberately obscures whether Hermione has actually been resurrected, or whether she never really died and was hidden away by Paulina. Certainly there are suggestions that the latter is the case, including the fact that the queen died off-stage, with only Paulina as a witness. Also, Paulinas insistence in V.1 that the

king promised to never marry again implies that she anticipates Hermiones return. But at the same time, the characters seem to accept the event as a true miracle. In either case, the resurrection of the wronged queen closes the circle, thematically: what began with death and winter now ends with spring and a true rebirth. Antigonus and Mamillius, Leontess victims, are forgotten; Paulina mentions my mate, thats never to be found again (V.3.133), but she is soon given a new husband. Mamillius is not needed, since both kingdoms now have an heir the same heir, in fact and both marriages and friendships are restored. On the other hand, that does not mean that the curse is lifted from the older generation: Hermione comes back to life to bless her daughter rather than to be reunited with her husband. It is up to the younger generation to do better and to bring new innocence and hope.

The Tempest (1611)

entirely original in plot. Sources: travel literature of the timemost notably the accounts of a tempest off the Bermudas that separated and nearly wrecked a fleet of colonial ships sailing from Plymouth to Virginia. The English colonial project seems to be on Shakespeares mind throughout The Tempest, as almost every character, from the lord Gonzalo to the drunk Stefano, ponders on how he would rule the island on which the play is set if he were its king. Montaignes essay Of the Cannibals, which was translated into English in 1603. The name of Prosperos servant-monster, Caliban, seems to be an anagram or derivative of Cannibal. The Tempest in performance: stage directions for a number of elaborate special effects. The many pageants and songs accompanied by ornately costumed figures or stagemagic for example, the banquet in Act III, scene 3, or the wedding celebration for Ferdinand and Miranda in Act IV, scene 1 give the play the feeling of a masque, a highly stylised form of dramatic, musical entertainment popular among the aristocracy of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is perhaps the tension between simple stage effects and very elaborate and surprising ones that gives the play its eerie and dreamlike quality, making it seem rich and complex even though it is one of Shakespeares shortest, most simply constructed plays. main characters: Alonso, King of Naples; Ferdinand, his son; Sebastian, the kings brother; Antonio, the usurping duke of Milan; Gonzalo, an old counsellor; Stephano, a drunken butler; Trinculo, a jester; Prospero, the rightful duke of Milan and Antonios brother; Miranda, Prosperos daughter; Ariel, an airy spirit; Caliban, the son of the dead witch Sycorax. Prospero: an enigmatic character a sympathetic character in that he was wronged by his usurping brother, but his absolute power over the other characters and his overwrought speeches make him difficult to like. His pursuit of knowledge has its advantages and disadvantages: it causes Prospero to neglect state matters and allows his brother Antonio to rise against him; yet, it renders him extremely powerful on the island where he manages to control spirits like Ariel and Caliban. His show of power makes him hardly sympathetic: his punishments of Caliban are petty and vindictive; he is defensively autocratic with Ariel; he is similarly unpleasant in his treatment of Ferdinand, leading him to his daughter and then imprisoning and enslaving him. But, undeniably, he is the central character of the play: Prospero generates the plot of the play almost single-handedly, as his various schemes, spells,

and manipulations all work as part of his grand design to achieve the plays happy ending. Watching Prospero work through The Tempest is like watching a dramatist create a play, building a story from material at hand and developing his plot so that the resolution brings the world into line with his idea of goodness and justice. Prospero emerges as a more likable and sympathetic figure in the final two acts of the play. In these acts, his love for Miranda, his forgiveness of his enemies, and the legitimately happy ending his scheme creates all work to mitigate some of the undesirable means he has used to achieve his happy ending. If Prospero sometimes seems autocratic, he ultimately manages to persuade the audience to share his understanding of the worldan achievement that is, after all, the final goal of every author and every play. Miranda: a gentle and compassionate, but also relatively passive, heroine. Miranda does not choose her own husband. Instead, while she sleeps, Prospero sends Ariel to fetch Ferdinand, and arranges things so that the two will come to love one another. After Prospero has given the lovers his blessing, he and Ferdinand talk with surprising frankness about her virginity and the pleasures of the marriage bed while she stands quietly by. In the plays final scene, Miranda is presented, with Ferdinand, almost as a prop or piece of the scenery as Prospero draws aside a curtain to reveal the pair playing chess. But while Miranda is passive in many ways, she has at least two moments of surprising forthrightness and strength that complicate the readers impressions of her as a nave young girl. The first such moment is in Act I, scene 2, in which she and Prospero converse with Caliban. Prospero alludes to the fact that Caliban once tried to rape Miranda. When Caliban rudely agrees that he intended to rape her, Miranda responds with impressive vehemence, clearly appalled at Calibans light attitude toward his attempted rape. The second surprising moment appears in Act III, scene 1, i.e., Mirandas marriage proposal to Ferdinand which comes shortly after Miranda has told herself to remember her fathers precepts forbidding conversation with Ferdinand. Both situations reveal Miranda as a young woman who is willing to speak up for herself, about her sexuality. Caliban: Prosperos dark, earthy slave, frequently referred to as a monster by the other characters, Caliban is the son of a witch, Sycorax, and the only real native of the island to appear in the play. He is an extremely complex figure, and he mirrors or parodies several other characters in the play. In his first speech to Prospero, Caliban insists that Prospero stole the island from him. Through this speech, Caliban suggests that his situation is much the same as Prosperos, whose brother usurped his dukedom. On the other hand, Calibans desire for sovereignty of the island mirrors the lust for power that led Antonio to overthrow Prospero. Calibans conspiracy with Stefano and Trinculo to murder Prospero mirrors Antonio and Sebastians plot against Alonso, as well as Antonio and Alonsos original conspiracy against Prospero. Caliban both mirrors and contrasts with Prosperos other servant, Ariel. While Ariel is an airy spirit, Caliban is of the earth; while Ariel maintains his dignity and his freedom by serving Prospero willingly, Caliban achieves a different kind of dignity by refusing, if only sporadically, to bow before Prosperos intimidation. Surprisingly, Caliban also mirrors and contrasts with Ferdinand in certain ways. Both Caliban and Ferdinand profess an interest in untying Mirandas virgin knot. Ferdinand plans to marry her, while Caliban has attempted to rape her. The glorified, romantic, almost ethereal love of Ferdinand for Miranda starkly contrasts with Calibans desire to impregnate Miranda

and people the island with Calibans. Finally, and most tragically, Caliban becomes a parody of himself, bold and defying in the speech in which he reproaches Prospero having usurped his right as the heir of the island, but ironically pathetic, repeating the same mistakes he cursed, in the scene in which he is shown drunk, pledging allegiance to Stefano whom he intends to make the king of the island in exchange for killing Prospero. Despite his savage demeanour and grotesque appearance, however, Caliban has a nobler, more sensitive side that the audience is only allowed to glimpse at briefly, and which Prospero and Miranda do not acknowledge at all. His beautiful speeches about his island home provide some of the most affecting imagery in the play, reminding the audience that Caliban really did occupy the island before Prospero came, and that he may be right in thinking his enslavement to be monstrously unjust. Calibans swarthy appearance, his forced servitude, and his native status on the island have led many readers to interpret him as a symbol of the native cultures occupied and suppressed by European colonial societies, which are represented by the power of Prospero. Whether or not one accepts this allegory, Caliban remains one of the most intriguing and ambiguous minor characters of Shakespeare, a sensitive monster who allows himself to be transformed into a fool. The Tempest tells a fairly straightforward story involving an unjust act, the usurpation of Prosperos throne by his brother, and Prosperos quest to re-establish justice by restoring himself to power. However, the idea of justice that the play works toward seems highly subjective, since this idea represents the view of one character who controls the fate of all the other characters. Though Prospero presents himself as a victim of injustice working to right the wrongs that have been done to him, Prosperos idea of justice and injustice is somewhat hypocriticalthough he is furious with his brother for taking his power, he has no qualms about enslaving Ariel and Caliban in order to achieve his ends. At many moments throughout the play, Prosperos sense of justice seems extremely one-sided and mainly involves what is good for Prospero. Moreover, because the play offers no notion of higher order or justice to supersede Prosperos interpretation of events, the play is morally ambiguous. As the play progresses, however, it becomes more and more involved with the idea of creativity and art, and Prosperos role begins to mirror more explicitly the role of an author creating a story around him. With this metaphor in mind, and especially if we accept Prospero as a surrogate for Shakespeare himself, Prosperos sense of justice begins to seem, if not perfect, at least sympathetic. In The Tempest, the author is in the play, and the fact that he establishes his idea of justice and creates a happy ending for all the characters becomes a cause for celebration, not criticism.

The Tempest: a Postcolonial Perspective

The nearly uninhabited island presents the sense of infinite possibility to almost everyone who lands there. Prospero has found it, in its isolation, an ideal place to school his daughter. Sycorax, Calibans mother, worked her magic there after she was exiled from Algeria. Caliban, once alone on the island, now Prosperos slave, laments that he had been his own king (I.2). As he attempts to comfort Alonso, Gonzalo imagines a utopian society on the island, over

which he would rule (II.1). In Act III, scene 2, Caliban suggests that Stefano kill Prospero, and Stefano immediately envisions his own reign: Monster, I will kill this man. His daughter and I will be King and Queensave our graces!and Trinculo and thyself shall be my viceroys (III.2.101103). Stefano particularly looks forward to taking advantage of the spirits that make noises on the isle; they will provide music for his kingdom for free. All these characters envision the island as a space of freedom and unrealized potential. While there are many representatives of the colonial impulse in the play, the colonized have only one representative: Caliban. One might develop sympathy for him at first, when Prospero seeks him out merely to abuse him, and when he is tormented by spirits. However, this sympathy is rendered more difficult by his willingness to abase himself before Stefano in Act II, scene 2. Even as Caliban plots to kill one colonial master (Prospero) in Act III, scene 2, he sets up another (Stefano). The urge to rule and the urge to be ruled seem inextricably intertwined. Prospero is a European who has taken charge of a remote island. He has been able to do this because he brings with him special powers. With these he organizes a life for himself, gets the local inhabitants (Ariel and Caliban) to work for him, and maintains his control by a combination of painful force or threats of force, wonderful spells, and promises of freedom some day. In taking charge of a place which is not his and in exerting his European authority over the strange non-European creatures, compelling them to serve him and his values, Prospero, so the argument runs, is obviously a symbol for European colonial power, with which England was growing increasingly familiar during Shakespeares lifetime (not just in the New World but also in Ireland). Caliban is the island native who regards himself as the rightful owner of the place, who is forced against his will to serve Prospero and Miranda, and who constantly proclaims his unwillingness to do so. Initially, Prospero extends to Caliban his European hospitality, teaches him language, and, in return, is shown all the natural resources of the island by Caliban, in an act of love. But Caliban refuses to live by Prosperos rules, tries to rape Miranda (he still wants to), and their relationship changes to one of master and slave. The gift of language, Caliban now says, is good only because it enables him to curse. Prospero may control Caliban (with painful torments), but he has not vanquished his resistance. For Prospero, the main problem with Caliban is that he is incapable of being educated (although Calibans command of beautiful poetry might make us wonder about that). He is thus (for Prospero) some lower life form: deformed, evil smelling, treacherous, rapacious, and violent (unlike Ferdinand, who is a suitable lover for Miranda). Hence, Prospero feels himself morally entitled to exercise his control over him. The play may be seen as an allegory on European colonial or capitalist practices The presentation of Caliban relies on a very European perception of alien New World cultures, and thus Prosperos moral authority rests on a complete inability to see the natives as fully cultured human beings, in other words, on his European mind set, which automatically labels those different from Europeans as ugly, uncivilized, and threatening others. The gift of language is not a gift but an imposition, a common means of enforcing colonial rule on recalcitrant subjects.

Problematic aspects of the postcolonial interpretation of the play: Shakespeares undermining colonial practices in the play: Caliban may, indeed, offend every European moral principle, but in some ways he is more intelligent and more open than some of the Europeans (like the drunken idiots Stephano and Trinculo and the deceitful murderous conspirators). He may resist Prosperos authority, but that authority is something we can call into question, especially by looking closely at the way it is enforced. In his renunciation of magic and return to Europe, Prospero would appear to be finally conceding that continuing on the island is wrong. Prosperos renouncing his magic (the source of his power) would seem then to be a tacit apology for the master-slave basis for the earlier relationships (with Caliban, but also with Ariel) which Prospero enforced. Caliban has no culture matrix, no family, and no cultural history. So one cannot be sure that the image of cultural oppression (of the Native American Indians/ Irish peasants/ members of the working class) is particularly clear. Eventually, one has to choose between a vision of Caliban which sees him as a semi-human brute (pure nature with no nurture) and a vision which sees him as a misunderstood and oppressed native person. Ariels political status? One possible interpretation makes Ariel the good native, the intelligent servant of the European masters (in contrast to Caliban the bad native), eventually an oppressing power over Caliban.

The Tempest, or the Exploration of the Nature of Art

The Tempest is a very theatrical play, that is, it is obviously a wonderful vehicle for displaying the full resources of the theatre: dramatic action, special effects, music, magic, monsters, dancing, storms, drunken humour, and so on. The Tempest does depend for much of its effectiveness on a wide range of special effects sound, lighting, fantastic visions, a whole realm of magic (it may well have been written in response to the changing theatrical tastes of an audience that was requiring more theatrical effects in the presentation of dramatic productions). But theres more to the theatricality of the play than just its style. Stephen Greenblatt: a kind of echo chamber of Shakespearean motifs: the painful necessity for a father to let his daughter go (Othello, King Lear); the treacherous betrayal of a legitimate ruler (Richard II, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Macbeth); the murderous hatred of one brother for another (Richard III, As You Like It, Hamlet, King Lear); the passage from court society to the wilderness and the promise of a return (A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It); the wooing of a young heiress in ignorance of her place in the social hierarchy (Twelfth Night, Pericles, The Winter's Tale); the dream of manipulating others by means of art, especially by staging miniature plays-within-plays (1 Henry IV, Much Ado About Nothing, Hamlet); the threat of a radical loss of identity (The Comedy of Errors, Richard II, King Lear);

 the relation between nature and nurture (Pericles, The Winter's Tale); the harnessing of magical powers ([2 Henry VI], A Midsummer Night's Dream, Macbeth). The most satisfying answer to the question why Prospero does not use his magical power in Milan is a very obvious one: magic does not work in Milan; it is effective only on the island, away from the Machiavellian world of the court. Prosperos magic can only become effective in a special place, a world of spirits, of illusion, song, and enchantment, on a magic island, in other words, in the theatre. The theatre that magical world of poetry, song, illusion, pleasing and threatening apparitions can, like Prosperos magic, educate us into a better sense of ourselves, into a final acceptance of the world, a state in which we forgive and forget in the interests of the greater human community. Magic here brings about a total reconciliation of all levels of society from sophisticated rulers to semi-human brutes, momentarily holding off Machiavellian deceit, drunken foolishness, and animalistic rebellion. This play seems to be saying that theatrical art, the magic of Prospero, can achieve what is not possible in the world of Milan, where everyone must always be on guard, because it is a Machiavellian world ruled by the realities of power and injury and there is no Ariel to make use of the power of illusions. In this light, Caliban might stand for dangerous, anarchic violence: he is an earthanimal who represents a clear and present danger, because he is not capable of being educated out of the state he was born into. Caliban is at times quite sensitive to the emotional qualities of Prosperos magic, especially the wonderful music he hears, but is too much in the grip of his raw instincts for rape and rebellion to respond with anything other than anger to his condition. Irony: Prospero is no sentimentalist. He recognizes the silence of Sebastian and Antonio at the end for what it is, an indication that they have not changed, that they are going to return to Naples and Milan the same people, i.e., political double dealers, ambitious and potentially murderous power seekers, just as Stephano and Trinculo are going back as stupid as when they left. Prosperos theatrical magic has brought them together, has forced them to see themselves, but it has had no effect on some characters (unless the staging of the end of the play conveys in non-verbal ways that the two noble would-be killers are as contrite as Alonso appears to be). The theatre is, in a sense, a place which can restore us, but this restoration is provisional and fragile, more of a hope than a robust certainty. The theatre metaphor helps explain why Prospero has to surrender his magical powers. Life cannot be lived out in the world of illusions, delightful and educative as they can often be. Life must be lived in the real world, in Milan or in Naples, and Miranda cannot thus entirely fulfill herself on the island. The world of the theatre can remind us of things we may too easily forget; it can liberate and encourage youthful wonder and excitement at all the diverse richness of life; it can, at times, even wake people up to more important issues than their own Machiavellian urge to self-aggrandizement, and, most important of all, it can educate into forgiveness. But it can never finally solve the problem of evil, and it can never provide an acceptable environment for a fully realized adult life. Prospero learns in the play to avoid the twin dangers to his experiment, the two main threats to the value of his theatrical magic: - the danger of using his powers purely for vengeance: Prospero, like Shakespeare,

is a master illusionist, and he is tempted to channel his personal frustrations into his art, to exact vengeance against wrongs done in Milan through the power of his art (perhaps, as some have argued, as Shakespeare is doing for unknown personal reasons against women in Hamlet and King Lear). But he learns from Ariel that to do this is to deny the moral value of the art, whose major purpose is to reconcile us to ourselves and our community, not to even a personal score. - Prospero may get too involved in his own wonderful skills to attend to the final purpose of what he is doing. It was his self-absorption in his own magic that got Prospero in trouble in the first place in Milan (as he admits), when he neglected his responsibilities for the self-absorbing pleasures of his books. There is a strong sense in this play that, whatever the powers and wonders of the illusion, one has to maintain a firm sense of what it is for, what it can and cannot do, and where it is most appropriate. It can never substitute for or conjure away the complexities of life in the community. That is why he eventually surrenders his magic: having wrought what his art can bring about, having reached the zenith of his skill, he has nothing left to achieve as an artist and he can go home, able to appreciate more fully what he did not understand long ago, i.e., the proper relationship between the world governed by magic and illusion, and the world in which most of us have to live most of the time. Many critics have linked Prosperos giving up of his art with Shakespeares decision to give up writing plays and to return to Stratford to enjoy life with his grandchildren (in fact, he did not give up the theatrical life immediately after writing this play). But it is a very tempting connection, especially in the light of the wonderful speech in Act IV, scene 1, one of the most frequently quoted passages in the play, a speech which has come to be called Shakespeares Farewell to the Stage.
Be cheerful, sir. Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and Are melted into air, into thin air; And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-cappd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a wrack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep.

Dreams may be the stuff of life, they may energize us, delight us, educate us, and reconcile us to each other, but we cannot live life as a dream. We may carry what we learn in the world of illusion with us into life, and perhaps we may be able, through art, to learn about how to deal with the evil in the world, including our own. But art is not a substitute for life, and it cannot alter the fundamental conditions of the human community. Life must be lived historically, not aesthetically.