Download Shakespeare - Filologica

Shakespeare
Class 1: Introduction
Main editions: - Norton
- New Arden
Journals:
- Shakespeare Survey
- Shakespeare Quarterly
Dutch: - Folio (Shakespeare Society of the Low Countries)
Central concept for this course: Shakespeare the Theatre Poet
Plays:
- Titus Andronicus
- King Lear
- Julius Caesar
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream (Production on 8th of December)
- Measure for Measure
Book: There Are More Things in Heaven And Earth
Central idea: It is impossible to find a religious/philosophical system in Shakespeare’s plays; he is no
philosopher. These plays can, however, contain general wisdoms. Their richness lies in their diversity
of perspective.
Ex.: Massive staging of all Roman plays shows an interesting view on philosophy.
Julius Caesar deals with the struggle of absolutism vs. Socialism. Shakespeare does not choose sides.
The political views and characters are left open to interpretation.
Measure for Measure can be seen either as a dark or conventional comedy. There are many
marriages – but in the end it is left open whether the heroine marries her counterpart Vincenzio.
Exam:
Written exam based on excerpts that need to be interpreted or placed in context.
Introduction:
Shakespeare is still very much alive in literary canon, but also a lasting presence in the theatrical
world; practically every play of his is still performed. He still influences contemporary literature (ex.
Tom Lanoye’s Ten Oorlog, despite the history plays not being popular in mainland Europe)
His plays are also often (and repeatedly) translated into film. They remain a huge source of
inspiration.
A number of Shakespeare’s turns of phrase were also lexicalised, ex. ‘What’s in a name’ or ‘All’s well
that ends well’.
This is even the case in Dutch, proving his universal and lasting impact.
‘Shakespeare’ itself has become an industry (great number of new editions).
There are also a number of myths about Shakespeare, for example that we know very little about
him. This is quite incorrect – we know more about him than about any of his contemporaries. His
public life is well documented. It is his personal life about which there is almost no documentation.
All that is known is that he was (probably) born in Stratford-Upon-Avon and most likely married.
The best biographies on this subject are S. Schoenbaum’s A Documentary Life, 1975 and Stephen
Greenblatt’s Will in the World.
A second myth is that Shakespeare did not write his own plays; there is such a great deal of
references that it is beyond doubt that the playwright did indeed write these works.
Christopher Marlowe has been mentioned as a candidate to have written these works, but he was
most likely just a source of inspiration. An eccentric, he died at 23, and it has been said that he might
have cheated death and adopted the pseudonym of Shakespeare for his own safety.
Francis Bacon has also been called a possible candidate, as it has been drawn into doubt if
Shakespeare, coming from the rural Stratford-Upon-Avon, could not have amassed the amount of
learning he does display.
There is, however, nothing in the plays to suggest a great deal of academic learning. Shakespeare did
attend the local grammar school, which made Shakespeare well-read in Latin and trained in rhetoric.
Some biographies mention the ‘lost years’ between 1585 and 1592. Scholars are not certain of
Shakespeare’s occupation or whereabouts during these years due to a lack of biographical
information. He may have been a teacher in Lancashire at the time, according to (among others)
Greenblatt. This position might have been acquired due to his link with one of the Catholic teachers
at Stratford-Upon-Avon.
Shakespeare may have been a Catholic himself (or at the very least a strong Catholic influence).
Hamlet’s father, for example, comes to him from purgatory. This concept did not exist in
Protestantism.
When the London playhouses reopened in 1592 (after the plague), Shakespeare was one of the Lord
Chamberlain’s Men shareholders. He created most of his important plays for this company. As such,
he was very closely involved with the theatre, as a shareholder and actor.
Class 2: Introduction
Reception
Shakespeare is not just an author, but also a cultural phenomenon. The
reception/appropriation/incorporation of Shakespeare in media has also become part of the
phenomenon. A few important aspects of this:
-
-
-
In England, Shakespeare has been popular since his own time. On the continent, however, it
took a while for him to become incorporated into the canon. Very early in the history of his
rise to popularity on the continent, wandering English actors brought his plays to the
mainland. Jan Vos’s Adam en Titus is based on Titus Andronicus.
Shakespeare did not truly become a part of mainland literary canon until the Romantic
period. The Romantics were particularly struck by Shakespeare’s creative power. ‘Next to
God, Shakespeare has created most’ – Shakespeare was considered a god of drama. Striking
was the range and depth of Shakespeare’s characters. Shakespeare’s work was brought
forward to counter the literary conceptions of Classicism and the strict adherence to rules
this entailed.
On the Isles, interest in Shakespeare peaked with Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who denied that
Shakespeare’s magnificence lay in occasional magnificence (with the rest of his work being
-
-
considered barbaric due to its low-class content). Coleridge explains that the Classicist critics
confuse organic and mechanical forms – Shakespeare does not adhere to a codified set of
rules such as Classicism imposes. He also argues that Shakespeare is not just a great
playwright, but also a great poet. He argues that despite the fact that some elements in
Shakespeare’s work are not remarkable, these passages are brilliant in their own right in the
context of physical stage performance.
Shakespeare is also a theatre poet in the sense that he uses very powerful imagery. (e.g. the
skull in Hamlet or inverted pieta of Lear and his daughter) Shakespeare fundamentally wrote
plays for performance. He wrote his plays as raw material for performance for his company,
and was extremely effective at this because he knew the stage in and out. Half of his plays
were not even published in his lifetime. This took until the publication of the 1623 First Folio.
As such, when reading a Shakespeare play one has to keep in mind that they are just scripts,
meant to be completed by the actors. Strikingly, Hamlet will most likely not have been
performed in full in the Elizabethan age. As such, even in its own time it must have been
shortened.
Opposed to this view, there is also the perspective that treats every word of Shakespeare’s
as literary gold. There is a train of thought that believes Shakespeare did have literary
ambitions.
Religious and philosophical background
The rise of Protestantism was a very important factor both in literature and metaphysics. In England,
of course, it was most important due to the schism that gave birth to the Anglican Church. As such,
in 1534, religion gained an even more potent influence on politics. By the end of Elizabeth I’s reign,
the Church of England had become a national institution. Before that period came a struggle for the
hearts of the people, but it remained important not to give in to the extremist/Puritan/Anabaptist
influence. Protestantism attached the greatest importance to the individual’s faith, and saw it as a
given that people are saved by faith alone. As such, the role of the priest loses importance, and the
individual takes the foreground.
Protestantism was also a factor in promoting individualism, which in turn stimulated the rise of
science and the scientific method. There was, of course, also the rise of capitalism. Max Weber
pointed out a relationship between the Protestant ethos and the birth of capitalism.
England, at the start of Elizabeth’s reign, was not in a fantastic state. By the time of her death,
England was again prosperous. She was a scholar and a literary figure, and stimulated art to a great
extent. Shakespeare’s company, for example, performed regularly at court – which as such became a
centre of intellectual achievement. She did however believe in royal absolutism, and can as such be
considered an enlightened monarch. England’s rulers were at the time considered to have two
bodies: the mortal body, and the body politic, which is perfect and timeless. As such, a female queen
was considered acceptable – since the body politic is timeless, it doesn’t matter if it’s female.
A key historical moment was the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. This event was the single
greatest boost to English nationalistic consciousness in their history. Protestantism’s victory over
Catholicism blended Protestantism and nationalism. In the wake of this event, a great many
nationalistic works were made; it is also in this period that Shakespeare begins writing his history
plays. Shakespeare plays into history. In The Tempest there are a number of colonial elements:
Prospero and his daughter make subjects out of the inhabitants of the island they are on.
The Elizabethan Worldview
The worldview in Shakespeare’s time was still largely medieval, despite for example the revelation of
heliocentrism. Shakespeare’s plays can as such be seen as a clash between the old ways of thinking
and the new philosophical developments. The problem in Hamlet, for example, is that Hamlet lives
in a world still based on the old medieval notions (i.e. revenge) despite his Renaissance education.
E.M.W. Tillyard wrote on this subject.
The Elizabethan worldview is mainly one of a perfect cosmic order, which hearkens back to
antiquity. This was a part of the social consciousness to such a degree that it is rarely explicitly
expressed, but often referred to. In Troilus and Cressida, Shakespeare describes it. The Elizabethans
fear any disruption of the cosmic order; when Othello suffers the risk of being cheated on, he states
that ‘chaos is come again’. Troilus and Cressida references the Ptolemaic worldview, entailing the
different tiers of existence as well as the different correspondences between elements of existence,
e.g. things on the land and things in the sea.
Troilus and Cressida
The centre of things – Earth – contains all things: degree, position, office, custom, etc. Order in the
cosmos entails order on earth – but when there is chaos in the Heavens, there is chaos on Earth.
Hector argues that if the order of degree should disappear, all will be entropy and humanity will
destroy itself.
End text
Man occupies a special place in the order of things, not only possessing a position in the physical
realm, but also having a rational soul that grants him a place in the spiritual world. In Hamlet’s
words, ‘Man is crawling between Heaven and Earth’. Hamlet speaks these words in the Globe
theatre, which of course grants them a metaphorical dimension. He contemplates on the general
nature of both man’s divine, refined nature and the base elements that he consists of. The action is
often mirrored in nature – for example, the most dramatic scenes are often accompanied by a
storm.
Recent studies have challenged the importance of the Elizabethan worldview. Among those
challenging it are the New Historicists, influenced by Foucault, among whom Greenblatt plays a
major role. They argue that the Elizabethans were not a homogeneous group, and as such were not
of one mind. The theatre producers have been argued to have been the proponents of subversive
social criticism. The theatre may as such have functioned as a sort of ‘safety valve’ for controversy,
being able to introduce socially controversial notions. The theatres were placed outside of the city
limits, along with other marginal elements of society. The plays generate subversive ideas about
society, but again absorb them, thus stabilizing society. Shakespeare himself has argued to be a
conservative playwright, supporting the Tudor myth.
Class 3: Introduction, Titus Andronicus
The Elizabethan Play
Prime source: Andrew Gurr’s essay Theatre-Going in Shakespeare’s London in the Norton
Shakespeare.
Two main venues: public and private theatres. The form of the theatre was that of the animal baiting
house, where an animal was tied to a stake and hounded by other animals. The yards of inns also
sometimes served to accommodate the theatre. The first public theatre was probably the Red Lion
in Whitechapel, built in 1567 and replaced by the Theatre in 1576. The latter was built by James
Burbage and demolished in 1599. The materials where then used to construct the Globe theatre,
where Shakespeare’s plays would take place.
The most important source of information about Elizabethan playhouses is probably the drawing of
the Swan theatre by Johannes De Wit. A platform juts forward into the spectators’ standing room,
which indicates an important, even intimate relation between the spectators and the actors.
Surrounding it are the polygonal (probably with eight angles) seating stalls in the surrounding threestorey amphitheatre. There was most likely an opening at the back of the stage, from which actors
could enter but which could also be used for theatrical effect. The gallery most likely extended to the
back of the stage, which could also be used for the performance, for example Romeo and Juliet’s
balcony scene.
The Elizabethan theatre was an open theatre, without decor. Only a number of stage props were
used. As such, playwrights were not just free to change locations quickly, but were also mentally free
in that they were not constrained by the scene. It was non-illusionistic in that no attempt was made
to create an illusion of location. Shakespeare himself, in Henry V, calls upon his audience’s
imagination to create or maintain the illusion. As such, the theatrical conventions were very
important, and in fact preferred to realism and naturalism. One of Shakespeare’s favourite tricks,
disguise, is an example of theatrical conventions. In As You Like It, the protagonist Rosalind for
example assumes the form of Ganymede, and runs into her lover Orlando, with whom she simulates
their lovers’ talk. These disguises were of course also a practical consideration, as all actors were
male, but this does add layers to the performance.
Another example of these theatrical conventions were the soliloquies and asides. Directly addressing
the audience could be argued to interrupt the action of the play; this could be compared to Brecht’s
alienation in that it demonstrates that the production is theatre as opposed to reality.
There were sometimes also plays within plays, such as in Hamlet or A Midsummer Night’s Dream;
Shakespeare also refers to the theatre in other ways, which forms a system of metatheatre.
There were also private playhouses, modelled after banquet halls. These were originally occupied by
choir boys’ companies. They were important competitors to the professional actors, as
demonstrated in Hamlet, by Rosencrantz’s speech about them.
Shakespeare’s later plays, the so-called romances (which were far less realistic, but more
sophisticated), were performed in the Blackfriars’ theatre. These later plays’ complexity might be
explained by the fact that at Blackfriars’, far more effects and supernatural elements were possible.
Titus Andronicus
The play is modelled almost completely after the Senecan model, for example in that there is an
accumulation of horrible violence. As such, it has proven to be very unpopular, with the greatest
popularity both in Shakespeare’s time and present day. In 1955, it was produced by Peter Brook,
staged with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Brook’s vision was almost ritualistic, most likely
influenced by Antonin Artaud’s Theatre of Cruelty. Before this, its popularity was rather lacking; T.S.
Eliot described it as ‘one of the stupidest and least inspired plays ever written’.
Titus Andronicus is noteworthy in that there is not just a First Folio edition, but a First Quarto (1594)
one as well, where it is described as having been played by several Lords at that point. As such, it
must have been quite popular.
Shakespeare almost never invented the stories of his own plays, usually using historical or
mythological sources. The story was known earlier in a prose form, as written by Ovid’s
Metamorphoses. One of these tales is the one about Philomena and Tyreus, which mirrors the story
of Lavinia. Strikingly, Lavinia points out what has happened to her by pointing at this very story.
Seneca was considered the only tragedic model from ancient times; the first play written in the
Senecan tradition was Gorboduc, written by Thomas Norton and Thomas Sackville. Also modelled on
Sencecan drama was Thomas Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy. Alexander Nevile translated the ten Senecan
tragedies. It has at this point become quite obvious that Seneca was quite important to Elizabethan
drama. It has been theorised that due to their nature (i.e. violence), Senecan works might have been
closet plays.
Artaud’s theory, however, has given us a different perspective on the plays. In Rome, of course,
violence on stage was not at all shunned and it might well have been an element of the culture. Titus
Andronicus is of course situated there, and as such seems to trap the audience in Rome (i.e. a
decadent, closed-off world).
The main motivator (or perhaps even theme) of the play is revenge, which situates it amongst the
revenge plays like Hamlet. Revenge becomes almost an obsession for the characters. A number of
recurring themes include the idea that death is a release into rest that is not to be feared; this was a
part of Seneca’s stoic philosophy. Another central idea is the ‘epistulae morales’, which ties in with
the stoic philosophy. When Titus in confronted with the state of his daughter, he remains completely
unfazed. He exclaims: ‘Ruler of the heavens, are you so slow to face crimes, to see?’ there is a
moment of passion, but that simply leads to lamentation and consolation in the wisdom of the stoic
philosophy.
Andronicus’ speech on line 168, ‘Let it be so...’ implies that in death, there is a form of rest to be
found. The same idea is also expressed in Macbeth.
A similar moment occurs when Titus sees his mutilated daughter and upon Marcus’ explaining that
he has lost his daughter, Titus points out that she still is, almost instantly accepting the facts. It is
however Titus that goes mad, most likely due to taking things too far.
A typically Shakespearian character is Aron the Moor, an example of a Machiavel, a type of Vice, a
schemer. These are typically interesting characters for the audience due to their theatricality.
Class 5: Titus Andronicus, King Lear
Ritualism
There is a re-invention of the play around the 1960s due to the new development of such theatrical
theories as that of Artaud. As such, the performance gains a more ritualistic aspect. In Peter Brook’s
production, for example, the horror was formalized. The newer forms have a more emblematic
quality; some of the characters and episodes might even be seen as somewhat archetypical. The
characters also occasionally freeze in certain postures – pictures almost – which again emphasises
the ritualism.
Some of the play’s more strongly criticised characteristics, such as the florid speeches, offset and
contrast the horror of some of the scenes. As such, there might even be an excess of imagery, florid
language and classical illusions. Marcus’s ‘Who is this’ speech, (2, 4) for example is an example of
this. The horror of the reality presents an almost ridiculous contrast with Marcus’s refined, rhetoric
speech. M.C. Bradbrook states on this subject that ‘the writer suggests by means of these images
‘look here upon this picture’; it is the contrast of remembering happiness in misery’. One could also
argue that the rhetoric, the use of images, tries to make the horror comprehensible, or tries to
generalise the events and, again, the horror. Waith argues that this establishes a level of alienation,
comparable to the distance in Brecht’s plays.
In the final scene, Titus’s speech again emphasises the ritualism, for example of ‘and stop their
mouths when they begin to cry’ – it is again about a mother losing her sons, and again about one of
the parties silencing another, which of course brings Lavinia’s linguasectomy to mind. There is again,
in these elements, a strong awareness and reference to Ovid, as the Metamorphoses are even
brought on stage.
Titus is the archetypical patriarch, possessing twenty-five sons that have no known mother; four of
them are alive at the start of the play, only one is by the end. His children retain a level of
dependence from him, both his daughter Lavinia and his sons. One can see the killing of Lavinia both
as an act of mercy or honour, but just as well as the act of an oppressive father, as a form of revenge
on a daughter who did not follow her father’s wishes in the end of the play.
King Lear
Introduction to Shakespearian tragedy
King Lear is one of the four great tragedies belonging to the middle section of Shakespeare’s work.
A.C. Bradley tries to define Shakespearian tragedy, focusing on Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear and
Othello, which he considers the great ‘pure’ tragedies by Shakespeare. Using these, he also tries to
define the essence of Shakespearian tragedy. It does seem somewhat arbitrary to select only these
plays.
A tragedy is fundamentally the tale of the suffering and tragedy of one central person, but it
generally extends far beyond this one person. As such, the fate of one hero also affects a whole
community. The main action of the tragedy can be said to be equally composed of action issuing
from character and character issuing in action. It might be described as conflict (which is central to
drama). As such, the external conflict of opposing forces is critical. The souls of those who contend
with the protagonist may be undivided, but the protagonist himself is divided by internal struggles.
Macbeth, for example, is typical of this. King Lear, in turn, is struggling with himself and the madness
that is taking hold of him. Also central is the so-called tragic flaw, a marked one-sidedness, for
example the jealousy of Othello, the hesitation of Hamlet and the hubris of Lear.
Bradley uses Hegel’s theories to demonstrate that tragedies are a struggle between partial goods
and partial evils, in contrast with melodramas which represent a clear-cut good vs. evil. He projects
this way of thinking about drama to the protagonists of Shakespearian drama and as such brings
about a new way of thinking.
Sources and references
A number of differences between the Folio and Quarto editions include about 300 added lines. The
addition is a scene where Lear has already gone mad and imagines the trial of his daughters. As such,
the texts are usually presented next to each other. The play was reportedly first performed in
December 1606, before the royal court – there may have been earlier stagings in the Globe,
however. A prime source is a work called King Leir, which contains a good deal of Christian
references, whereas Shakespeare’s plays often rely on pagan elements (‘Oh Gods!’) but do take
place in a pagan world. Shakespeare makes it into an absolute play in that sense that there are no
Christian factors driving the action whatsoever; Shakespeare has transposed the play from a specific
context to a more general and universal one. Samuel Harsnet does however recognize references to
a number of popish impostors in the text.
King Lear is considered a monumental, grand play among Shakespeare’s works. J. Hunter compares
the play to the monument of Stonehenge: grand, but mysterious and hard to explain as well as hard
to act out; too huge, perhaps, for the stage. Charles Lamb argued that it was simply too monumental
to be acted. The Restoration adaptation by Tate introduced a happy end through the marriage of
Edgar and Cordelia while removing Lear’s death, and remained popular until the 19th century. This
might serve to suggest that the tragic end in Shakespeare’s King Lear is so huge and unbearable that
the audience might not be able to cope with it. There is no theory or philosophy in King Lear, and it
is not meant to illustrate moral concepts. It is simply an experience meant to be burned through.
One theme present in both the Lear and the Gloucester plot is the relationship between parents and
children. To a child, the father might be both the loved protector and the oppressor. This ambivalent
attitude is distributed between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ children of both Lear and Gloucester. Goethe
pointed out that ‘An old man is always a King Lear’ in a certain sense: both reliant on children, and
ungrateful to them. Lear is also corrupted by power, unable to differentiate between flattery and
true loyalty. The play takes Lear through a journey of suffering, but he also learns that he is a
common man like any other, which years of kingship had blinded him to. (3, 4) He addresses the
‘poor, naked wretches’ of the world and asks himself how they weather the seasons – he finds
therein a first moment of solidarity and wishes that they should receive others’ abundance so that
there may be a fairer world. Sibling rivalry is also a main theme, and results in a great deal of
suffering; most relationships depicted are perverted. The Elizabethan sense of everything in nature
having its place in an order is completely shattered in King Lear. The family ritual, the ceremony is
broken down by Cordelia’s refusal to speak in the first scene. Kent, a loyal subject, defends Cordelia;
he is also thrown out. As such, the first scene is an overture, an omen of what is to come as order is
turned into chaos.
More than Hamlet, King Lear has also become the tragedy that appeals most to our age. The
overarching mood in King Lear is a sense of doom, which the 20th century is quite sympathetic to,
due to the threat of atom bombs and war; theatrically speaking, there are also quite simply more
absurdist possibilities. Jan Kott tries to link Shakespeare and modern concepts such as Freudianism
and Marxism. He wrote on a link between King Lear and Beckett’s Endgame; he as such presented a
way to see King Lear’s world as an absurdist one. The role of the fool is deemed particularly
important in this regard, as well as the suicide of Gloucester. There is also the theme of blindness, in
both the literal and figurative sense: Gloucester is actually blinded, but both he and Lear and blind to
the distinction between flattery and loyalty.
Class 6: King Lear
Motifs
Nature is an important recurring element. This is vital to the play’s philosophy. Nature in the strictest
sense is a very important influence (e.g. the storm). When Edmund calls nature his goddess, this is
meant to reflect his nature: he is selfish and disloyal. Cordelia’s nature, on the other hand, involves
harmonious coexistence: she is selfless and loyal. The characters also move to gain a full
understanding of nature. The word itself carries different layers of meaning and different
conceptions of reality.
The first scene is essentially a foreshadowing overture, containing many elements that will later
return.
The second scene introduces the rivalry between Edmund and Edgar, and shows the relationship
between Gloucester and his two sons going wrong; this is obviously a comment on the first scene.
Edmund shows a philosophy of his own regarding nature, which clashes with Cordelia’s. (There are
others, but these are most extreme) Cordelia accepts the bond between parent and child as
supremely natural. Edmund’s Act II speech criticises his brother’s conception as the result of a dull
marriage while he himself, being a bastard, was conceived in the stealth of nature’s lust and as such
deems himself the rightful owner of Edgar’s lands. He is a manipulator, a machiavel like Aron, and
(almost) finds pleasure in his deceit. This selfsame deceit also marks him as . a great actor. He also
greatly emphasises his 'base' nature, which ties in with him being a bastardEdmund has great selfcontrol, which seems to be Lear's flaw as he loses it in the first scene. Another frequently-used word
is 'nothing'; Edmund's letter is ‘nothing’, but Lear often uses the word as well. If it is nothing that
Edmund is holding, Gloucester says, he shall not need spectacles to see it, which alludes to
Gloucester's later blindness.
Gloucester himself also refers to nature: almost everything in nature falls apart, and so too the bond
between father and son. He speaks of the wisdom of nature, which is natural philosophy, scientific
knowledge of nature’s laws. Edmund calls the bond between father and son unnatural.
According to J. Danby, King Lear has two different conceptions of natural philosophy that were also
competing at the time of writing. There is, on the one hand, the revolutionary view on nature found
in the work of Thomas Hobbes (in a sense the modern view). The Lear party, however, has the views
of Francis Bacon and Richard Hooker: they believe that nature is good, benevolent, ordered by God.
Human customs derive from nature: ‘it is only natural for children and parents to respect one
another. Edmund, on the other hand, is the new and modern man, announcing the philosophy of
Thomas Hobbes. His conception of nature contains neither human values, nor divine reason; it is an
unliving mechanical system of cause and effect, and as such Edmund is able to manipulate it. He
derides the thinking that one is bound by naturally destined compulsion (i.e. astrology) to act as one
does. Shakespeare could be argued to make an implicit judgment about the pragmatist, modern
values that Edmund represents, but it is not as clear-cut as that, as Lear’s (almost Christian) values
do see their downfall in the end of the play.
Lear addresses nature in his ‘Hear, nature, hear’-speech (act I, scene IV) as a goddess when he curses
his daughter. He goes so far as asking nature to be unnatural when he condemns her and wishes
infertility upon her. This leads to a chain of negative events that will prove very hard to break.
Act IV, scene 6: Lear still has one daughter (Cordelia) who breaks the curse of unnaturalness that the
loyal will be pushed away and the disloyal kept close.
Another theme is that of blindness and seeing, which is heavily referenced throughout the play.
Lear’s journey is mostly marked by madness, but blindness also plays an important role. The first
scene (and first ceremony) already illustrates this. Lear orders Kent ‘out of his sight’ and Kent replies
‘see better, Lear, and let me remain the true blank of thine eye’, again foreshadowing future events.
Both the fool and Lear later refer to Lear’s metaphorical loss of sight, but Gloucester, then blinded,
implies that he can better see without sight. They have to become blind in order to see.
Gloucester’s blinding is a fairly terrible moment in the play, and in a shocking scene the play’s
overarching metaphor becomes a fact- also an act of unnaturalness. ‘Let’s see’ Gloucester demands
of Edmund three times exactly at the moment when he is fooled. The Duke remarks, quite ironically
in retrospect, that he goes to Dover so as not to see his eyes plucked out with claws. He later calls
upon a winged vengeance that he will see overtake his children. He also refers to a moral eye. The
blinding is fundamentally to Gloucester what the storm will be to Lear: a font of new-found
awareness.
When Gloucester’s servants defend him, this is a turning point in the play, demonstrating that the
forces of good are still present. This scene was left out of Peter Brook’s production,, which can be
argued to misrepresent what is going on in the play, strengthening the sense of doom.
Class 7: King Lear
Motifs cont.
Theme of madness: scene where Lear is going mad on the heath is overwhelming. Three different
forms of madness are united; Lear is accompanied by the Fool (a professional madman) and Edgar,
who pretends to be mad. The storm also strikes at the same moment, which is a form of elemental
madness. This madness is of course also a sign of an underlying condition. R. B. Heilman, in This
Great Stage, distinguishes four great levels on which this madness works.
First it is a psycho-physiological phenomenon: an unstable personality breaks down. As a result, Lear
can no longer maintain his identity. The way this is expressed is more physiological than
psychological.
A second manifestation is a failure of understanding the phenomenally complex situation. Lear is so
greatly shocked by the presence of evil in his children that he cannot comprehend it.
Madness also plays a part on the moral level of the play; Lear has to go through a learning process in
order to attain expiation in the end. He must rid himself of the sins he committed in the end of the
play.
Madness, of course, is also a symbol of the disorder in a disturbed world, of the breach in nature (i.e.
the parent/child-relationship (ex. Edmund).
Lear is driven insane by a series of shocks; the first one is the attack by Goneril (Act I, Scene IV) that
makes him pretend he does not know her or himself. The Fool at this point (Act I, Scene V) calls him
‘Lear’s shadow’ when Lear asks who he is. At this point, his identity is of course already shaken. In
the next scene, he comes to a full recognition of his folly, stating ‘I did her wrong’ in reference to
Cordelia.
Linked with S. Harsnett’s pamphlet (describing hysteria), one can note the imminent madness
possessing Lear’s body (Act II, Scene V). Lear describes signs of hysteria, and makes reference to the
womb. This ties back into the pamphlet, which describes hysteria being caused by vapours rising up
from the lower parts of the body; in women it was said to cause the uterus to wander around. This
immediately follows Act II, Scene IV (line 250) discussing the reason of need: if one does not indulge
in more than is needed, one is does not elevate himself above the animals. Lear at that point still
believes that he can (or should) decide which daughter is better based on how many followers they
can give him. He tries to calculate love. Lear asks for patience, but the Latin pati can also mean ‘to
suffer’.
Lear’s describing his madness (‘I will do such things that they will be the terror of the earth’,’ I have
full cause of weeping ‘, ‘Oh, Fool, I will go mad’) gives a rhythm to Lear’s madness. Lear’s personality
can truly be recognized in these words.
There is a great deal of reference to clothes (for example in Lear’s speech about need); this acquires
meaning in the rest of the play. When he meets with Poor Tom, who is almost naked, Lear wishes to
take off his clothes as seen in ‘Off, you lendings (from animals)’ because Lear wishes to feel empathy
with the poor things of the world. Theatrically speaking, clothes are also very significant in this play.
If the play is a process, starting off with a big ceremony, Lear’s clothes should progress from very
pompous attire to very little on the heath, to white garments (from the doctor) when he has
rejoined with Cordelia.
The theme of patience might be a reference to the book of Job, who was terribly afflicted by all kinds
of miseries and tested as such in his faith. There are a number of indications that Lear is made into a
Job-like figure.
When Lear sees the naked Edgar, this forces him to reconsider the most basic of his roles, his own
situation as a mere man. ‘Is man no more than this?’ he wonders. These Poor Tom-related passages
are quite striking and touching when performed; the significance of clothes was most likely even
greater for Shakespeare’s contemporaries. Clothes were harder to buy at that time, and strongly
determined the social order; Edgar taking his clothes off then becomes a sign of subversion of the
social boundaries.
In the end, Lear is taught something by his madness. One of the important perspectives that
madness teaches him is that he, in his former life, had no concern for society, no social awareness.
This is also prevalent in the plot of Gloucester, when the latter gives his purse to Poor Tom, pleading
for a distribution of wealth.
Another insight that Lear gains is his concern for justice, which is his primary obsession in his
madness – for example when he has an imaginary trial for his two daughters using two chairs. He has
a perhaps strange idea of justice: everyone is a sinner, and therefore no-one should be punished.
In Scene IV, VI, Lear forgives adultery through the reasoning that it is everywhere and people are no
worse for it, although Lear’s disgust with female sexuality does show when he describes women’s
nether regions.
Even in madness, Lear keeps up the quest for his identity, a new subjectivity. The physiological level
is quite important; Lear finds that the body itself is the very stuff of identity. This ties in with
Foucault (and Descartes); madness is seen in a purely physical light (Shakespeare having less of a
conception of individual psychology – the first mental asylums were established in the 18th century).
Madness leads to death.
If madness is such an important theme, the Fool must also be important. There is an interesting
connection between him and Cordelia; the Fool is never on stage when Cordelia is. It has been
thought that the two might have been played by the same actor (Robert Armin was the actor who
played the fools’ roles). When Cordelia has been killed, Lear exclaims ‘My poor fool has been
hanged’. When Cordelia returns, the Fool disappears. This has to do with the function of the Fool,
who points out Lear’s foolishness; the Fool is an antibody, a complete contrast to the other
characters. He calls Lear his (Lear’s) own shadow and points him out as the one that has disturbed
the order or nature of both the court and the kingdom.
In As You Like It, there is Touchstone, in Twelfth Night, there is Festi, both part of the theatrical type
of the fool that Shakespeare has created. Robert Armin joined Shakespeare’s company in 1595.
Before Armin’s joining, William Kempe played a number of physical comedy-based fools’ roles.
Armin gave the fool a new dimension as the one that can see through it all.
Armin was quite a curious character. He had written religious pamphlets and plays, and also A Nest
of Ninnies.
The Fools were a staple of royal households, part of a lord’s retinue, great organizers, intelligent
men, freelance entertainers. A number of common factors are that many of them had achieved a
status as an official master of ceremonies. They often came from remote places, sometimes
deformed men, who nevertheless played the jester’s role at court. They belonged to a different
world, being classless, isolated, not integrated into the court despite their importance. Fools seem to
have had a licence to do and say things that would be considered treason if done by others.
Their existence depended on the favour of their masters, and as such they are a witty, solitary type
‘exterior’ to the world but with a great insight. Shakespeare used this type of historical entertainer
and moulded it to be a theatrical figure. This also increases the theatricality and playfulness of
Shakespeare’s plays. The licence is also an interesting notion: the Fool is in King Lear the only one
with permission to be completely honest and bluntly critical of Lear.
Twelfth Night has a scene in which the roles are reversed between the fool Festi and Lady Olivia.
Festi at one point exclaims ‘Take away the fool!’ The adaptation Shakespeare makes due to Robert
Armin leads to a new type of fool that can see through the theatre and theatricality of it all. The Fool
is in King Lear a creature whose job it is to create illusion that finally removes the veil from before
Lear’s eyes. The Fool could, however, quite easily be taken out without the narrative flow changing.
This demonstrates the isolation from the other characters that typifies the fool.
As You Like It has the character Jacques, the melancholy character, who describes the seven ages of
man. Jacques meets with Touchstone, and expresses that he would like to have his licence of
criticism.
Lear’s growth, Lear’s development towards redemption (Bradley)
‘Should we not be at least as near the truth if we called this poem ‘The redemption of King Lear’ and
declare that the business of the Gods with him was neither to torment him nor teach him a noble
anger but lead him to attain through apparently hopeless failure the very end and aim of life?’
In other words, is King Lear redeemed? The suffering is almost superhuman, especially when Lear
appears with his daughter in his arms in an inverted pieta and fools himself into thinking she is still
alive.
Lear is moved from a narrow view to a more inclusive one. When he gives the ‘Poor naked
wretches’-speech, there is a growing consciousness of responsibility.
When Gloucester ‘falls’ from Dover Cliff, Lear’s madness touches upon many aspects, mainly –againthe theme of his humanity. The speech wherein Lear recognizes the chaos might also echo Romans
(as in the Bible book): ‘And if you are sure you are a guide to the blind... you, then, who teach
others, will you not teach yourself – while you preach against stealing, do you steal?’ Lear is
humiliated, but humbleness is a Christian virtue. He becomes obsessed with revenge, but again gives
it up. When he meets again with Cordelia, he calls her ‘a soul in bliss’. He, however, considers
himself ‘wronged by being robbed from the grave, bound upon a wheel of fire that his own tears do
scald like molten lead’. The ‘wheel of fire’ is a reference to hell, which strengthens the opposition to
Cordelia being ‘a soul in bliss, a spirit’. She becomes almost a Christ-like figure.
It is said of Cordelia that she is the one daughter ‘who redeems nature from the general course that
twain has brought’. ‘Nature’ is the nature of man, but it might well be a reference to the fall of Adam
and Eve being redeemed by Christ. Shakespeare might well have left out the Christian context in
order to achieve a more absolute sense of values. Opposed to this Christian reading is Jan Kott’s
interpretation in Shakespeare, our contemporary. This contains King Lear or Endgame, which makes
King Lear a part of the theatre of the absurd through the Fool and Gloucester committing suicide.
Class 9: A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Introduction
A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a romantic comedy, one of the earlier ones, succeeded by As You
Like It, Twelfth Night, and others. It is nevertheless one of Shakespeare’s most popular ones. It
presents a romantic world, populated by fairies and mythical characters – as such, it is nothing short
of a dream world. The major theme (as with all the romantic comedies) is love and its illusions and
disillusions. It has often been musically decorated with music by Mendelssohn, at least in the
‘classical’ method of approaching it. The twentieth century, however, has discovered the nightmare
in the dream.
The play is also linked with marriage, and many critics and authors who have studied the play believe
that the play was written to first be performed on a noble’s wedding feast. There is, however, no
evidence to link A Midsummer Night’s Dream to a specific wedding around the time of its
conception.
Helen Gardner distinguishes pure comedy and satirical comedy; the former having its end defined by
marriages heralding new beginnings by which the world is renewed, its rhythm the rhythm of
mankind; the tragedy on the other hand follows the rhythm of the individual’s life, and end in death.
Marriage being so critical to the play’s plot defines A Midsummer Night’s Dream as a comedy; a
feeling of community and life is created and marriage is not merely a trope, but has become a
symbol. The marriage of Theseus and Hyppolita provides a framework for the play, but the same
goes for the fairy marriage between Oberon and Titania.
Shakespeare also uses a number of elements drawn from the masque. This is one of the reasons why
one might believe that the play was indeed performed on a specific occasion. The masque is defined
by being performed and court with a great deal of pomp, and it was so popular that even Ben Jonson
wrote a good deal of masques, together with the architect Ingo Jones. Both elements of the masque
and marriage return in The Tempest: Prospero at one point, using his magic, created a masque on
stage to celebrate his daughter’s marriage. The form of the masque was fairly ubiquitous in Europe,
existing all over Europe, often called ‘intermedii’. Oberon’s description of the magic flower (he saw a
mermaid on a dolphin’s back, Cupid, etc.) is reminiscent of the spectacle one might encounter in a
masque.
Shakespeare also incorporates popular traditions and festivities such as the customs of Maying that
celebrates the advent of Spring. During this ritual, young girls went out to collect hawthorn in the
woods. The movement into the woods and back returns in the Shakespeare play, but the association
with Maying immediately evokes the metaphor of unity between man and nature. Lysander arranges
to meet with Hermia in the wood, a league away from the town, where they once met ‘to do
observance to a morn of May’. Helena mentions hawthorn buds shortly after that. The mechanicals
rehearse in the woods, and choose a hawthorn break as the site of their rehearsal. Most interesting
of all is Theseus almost stumbling over the sleeping characters, upon which he says ‘No doubt they
rose up early to observe the rite of May and hearing our intent came here in grace of our solemnity’.
The comedy is also connected – if only by the title – with Midsummer Eve, associated with the
solstice, one of the oldest holidays in folklore; this had become a carnival time, a time when values
were turned upside down. The same fantastic elements return in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
The whole concept of course reinforces and contributes to the play’s dreamy atmosphere. It is worth
noting how Shakespeare manages to integrate all these different influences into one harmonious
play. He creates four different worlds or spheres:
-
The court
The lovers
The fairies
The mechanicals
The irrationality of love ties these spheres together; Puck’s deception with the potion disturbs the
young lovers, but also ties together the mechanicals and fairies (Bottom & Titania). The greatest
contrast remains however with the world of the mechanicals. Their performance of the play does
however tie them into the story. Pyramus and Thisby , being an earlier version of the play, may be
meant to tie in with Romeo and Juliet. The mechanicals’ performance does struggle with the illusion,
having to use an actor to represent a wall, for example. The theme of illusion and imagination, which
lies at the heart of theatre, is present here; as such, the madness of love is connected to the illusion
of theatre. Theseus, at the end of the play, gives a speech (about the lunatic, lover, etc.) strongly
related to this theme.
Puck is a theatrical character, the play’s go-between between the spheres or layers, something of a
jester-like character that restores order at the end of the play. At the end of the play, he addresses
the audience. The romantic comedies create an atmosphere of harmony that extends to the
audience. Given how Puck connects the different spheres, he may be argued to include the audience
as a last one.
Titania’s speech in reply to Oberon’s allegations of unfaithfulness claims that Oberon’s mistakes and
the quarrels of the gods have brought about disorder in nature and the world of man. This could be
argued to be reminiscent of the speech from Troilus and Cressida about the order in the universe.
Many critics have thought that Titania’s exact description of the effects on the countryside may have
referred to the extremely bad weather in the summers that had struck England then. As the speech
goes on, the audience is drawn into the human world. As such, the fairy world is brought very close
to the audience’s world.
The play scene at the end of the... well, play is quite obviously a climax. The eventual marriage of the
protagonists is continuously hinted at and built towards, and as such none of this comes as a
surprise. Theseus is the voice of rationality and moderation in this mad world, and he is the one who
shows understanding and casts a benevolent gaze upon the play. Bottom breaks out of the play as
well, which suggests the increasing sense of harmony growing out of the discord. The play-within-aplay is the climax of harmony. The movement of the play is fairly typical for Shakespeare: the action
begins at court (in the ordinary world) and moves into the fantastic world (of the forest); from which
the characters again return at the end of the play.
N. Frye claims that the Shakespearian comedies transcend the type of comedy that was typical for
the western theatre; Shakespeare is more inclined towards the pattern of the ritual of death and
revival of which there is an exact equivalence in the drama of the ‘green world’. The action of the
comedy begins in the normal world, moves into the green world where a metamorphosis is achieved
and again returns to the normal world. This cycle is analogous to that of the seasons. There is an
idea of resurrection, the victory of life over death. In a sense, Shakespeare’s comedies go beyond the
tragedies. In The Tempest, which begins with a terrible storm, the whole tragedy seems to be
summarised in this beginning and the comedy develops in the twenty-four hours afterwards. The
characters in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the characters temporarily leave the normal world in
order to be cleansed.
Athens, resembling civilisation and reason is contrasted with the wood where the irrational forces
emerge. Theseus most represents reason, and is characterised by a certain humanity and wisdom
that the other characters are yet to find. The play is marked by a development from chaos to
renewed harmony.
Shakespeare uses images as a means of giving coherence to the plays and characterizing them. Here,
the most unifying image is that of the moon and moonlight. Theseus refers to it, calling it slow, he
himself restless. Hyppolita tells him that he need not be restless, for the hours will quickly fade.
Theseus, by calling upon the moon, invokes the disorder and lunacy that are to follow. The image of
the changing moon suggest the changeableness of love. In the course of the play, other associations
with the moon will be implied.
The moon’s invocation of madness is significant as well. The world outside of Athens is called the
wood, which is again a label for ‘mad’. Demetrius makes the pun on ‘wood’ as ‘forest’, ‘courting’,
and ‘madness’.
It is obvious that the theatre itself is also an obvious and common in Shakespeare’s plays, which can
be gleaned from the rehearsals and the play itself. Measure for Measure, contains similar themes.
The idea that everything depends on imagination is very strong in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,
especially Theseus’ speech towards the end, in which he calls the madman, the lover and the poet
the same in their connection with imagination. This also refers to the spell under which the
spectators have been kept throughout the performance.
In modern adaptations (1950s onwards), more malignant aspects of the play have been discovered:
the play has traditionally been depicted as taking place in a dreamy fairy world. The modern
perception of the dream world is different. Jan Kott has a Freudian interpretation of the play’s
events, in which the suppressed urges of the characters emerge. Kott very much emphasises the
potential eroticism of the play, particularly drawing attention to the references to animals. Hermia
awakes believing she has been trapped by a serpent (which obviously has sexual connotations), and
Titania falls in love with the ass-headed Bottom. Kott calls the ass the animal with the ‘strongest and
longest fallus there is’. Brook’s production with the Royal Shakespeare Company left out the forest
and staged the play in a white box, with the magic done by means of circus elements. He as such
translated the magical elements into the theatrical language of the 20th century; he also emphasises
the eroticism in the scene where Bottom is carried around by Titania’s servants. Puck can easily be
seen as a devil, a malignant figure. The fairies can also be seen as malignant, goblin-like figures.
Class 10: Julius Caesar
Julius Caesar is opposed to Titus Andronicus in that it is in fact based on actual events and rooted in
history, based on North’s translation of Plutarch. The same goes for Coriolanus and Anthony and
Cleopatra. This places them between tragedies and history plays. The latter two were written
towards the end of Shakespeare’s career; Julius Caesar was probably written in 1599. It was most
likely performed in the Globe theatre. Platter, a Swiss visitor to England, describes the performance,
which was concluded by a dance.
Julius Caesar is described as a tragedy, but the question is whose tragedy; Caesar’s or Brutus’?
(Caesar kicking the bucket in the third act) Bradley’s criteria to tragedy paint Brutus as the tragic
hero. He is a man with enormous potential for good, but his tragic flaw is not entirely clear-cut; he
makes a number of critical mistakes in his own enterprise. The flaw might best be described as a lack
of insight into himself, a lack of understanding what happens around him. In terms of character
issuing in action, Brutus is again a more central character than Caesar. Hegel argues that the tragic
hero’s problem is not the choice between good and evil, but a moral dilemma, a choice between two
(mutually exclusive) goods or evils. This again can be applied to Brutus, who is forced to choose
between the Republic and his love for Caesar.
Caesar’s appearance as a ghost might suggest that the spirit of Caesar is still there: characters also
refer to him continuously. As such, Caesar dominates the play, but his spirit is more central than the
man himself. Brutus initially suggests that what they are killing is the spirit of Caesar, not the man.
Of course, the man dies and the spirit lingers. This is the tragic irony of the whole play. At its heart is
the conflict between democracy and tyranny.
The play is very much a public play; a great number of scenes take place in public places. The play
begins with the people, the commoners. Ironically, the tribunes (representatives of the people)
blame the people for honouring Caesar in this scene. These numerous public moments might be one
of the reasons why the play is not performed very often.
Deposing the ruler was something of an issue in the Elizabethan age; the King or Queen had a divine
right at that point, so deposing a king was considered impossible. As a result, this was somewhat
controversial. In Richard II, Richard has to hand over the crown to Henry. Richard does not want to
surrender his crown, and Henry does not wish to take it because this would be usurpation; he wants
Richard to surrender the crown to him. Shakespeare might have written the play to present the
problem in as far removed a society as possible.
There are two views of Caesar that Shakespeare presents. The medieval view establishes the Roman
Empire as the channel through which Christianity was brought to Europe. Killing Julius Caesar, who
was an instrument in this, is as such a terrible sin. Dante placed Brutus in the foulest circle of hell
together with Judas Iscariot.
The Renaissance view was different: Caesar was a tyrant and his murderers were liberators. The way
in which the conflict and characters are presented does not choose sides, and makes it more difficult
for the audience to do so. Caesar is presented as an authoritive, arrogant ruler, often speaking of
himself in the third person, and almost deifies himself just before his death. The more arrogant he
acts, the more he deserves to be killed, theatrically speaking. Shakespeare does also point out
physical weaknesses on Caesar’s part, making him a human being like the others.
The homely atmosphere with his wife Calpurnia is also essential in making Caesar a likeable person.
There are two such scenes with wives, one for Caesar and one for Brutus. Caesar proves the more
amiable and understanding person between the two. Also contributing to this is the fact that Caesar
does in several scenes accommodate for the people, which makes his rule tyranny with a human
face.
The republican ideal is represented by Brutus. Critics have recognized in Brutus a forerunner of
Hamlet; he is presented as a thinker, the man who deliberates his actions. He also makes a number
of mistakes as a result of which things go wrong. He is, like Hamlet, an intellectual, the stoic
philosopher. The tragic flaw of Brutus seems to be that as an intellectual, he aspires to turn politics
into ethics.
An interesting speech of Brutus’ in this context is the soliloquy in which he tries to motivate killing
Caesar. (Act II, Scene I) Brutus claims that Caesar must be eliminated before he gets the opportunity
to cause harm. ‘It must be by his death’, he claims, which indicates that Brutus has already made up
his mind. All of Brutus’ arguments are based on suppositions and speculations on his part; for one,
there is the fact that Brutus believes that Caesar wants to be crowned. Brutus doesn’t know what
Caesar might have done wrong so far, but fears that he might become a tyrant and scorn the lower
layers of society. Brutus does in later parts of his speech indicate that he might be deluding himself
(‘fashion it thus’ suggest that he can manipulate the situation).
Anthony’s comments on Brutus indicate that he was very much a noble man, but Brutus’ speech
here does paint him as somewhat hypocritical. Immediately before the murder he claims that it
would be too bloody and grim to kill Anthony as well. ‘Let us be sacrificers but not butchers; oh that
we could kill Caesar’s spirit and not butcher him’, Brutus says. The irony has already been pointed
out, but Brutus’ suggests that it should be a ritual and that they should encourage their own hearts
to kill Caesar, but then seem to chide them, as subtle masters do to their servants. This evokes the
feigning and schizophrenia of the murder. Brutus tries to blur reality, to blind himself to the effects
of his act.
Another important episode in the play that might imply that Brutus is false and inclined towards
pretence is the fact that Brutus has already heard of the death of his wife, but when he receives the
news, acts as a perfect stoic. This scene has been argued to have been a mistake on Shakespeare’s
part, but it might unmask Brutus as a man who deliberately shows off and plays the part of a perfect
stoic.
It is also Brutus who bungles the whole enterprise: he lets Anthony live, lets him speak to the
people, and makes a number of strategic mistakes. In all these misjudgements, he selectively ignores
advice and as such, despite claiming to be a great democrat, acts as a tyrant.
The play has a strong (meta-)theatrical dimension. All the major characters seem to be playing a
role, being self-aware actors, conscious of the historical role they are playing. This opens
perspectives on parallels between the theatre and political life. After the murder, the killers wonder
how often that very act will be enacted again in ‘states unborn and actions yet unknown’. This refers
both to the political event and the theatrical event.
Anthony’s speech is a great form of theatre as well. There is a genuine friendship between Caesar
and Anthony, and this shows in his funeral speech. But the speech also demonstrates a great degree
of opportunism and Machiavellian manipulation, a mix of cunning and genuine emotion. Because of
that mixture and the rhetoric, this is regarded as one of the greatest speeches ever written. The
contrast between Brutus’ speech and Anthony’s is also striking. Brutus is very down-to-earth,
speaking the language of reason in a short speech.
Anthony’s speech is longer, moving through a number of sections in carefully composed verse,
sectioned by the interruptions of the proles. Anthony’s speech is as such progressively better
received by the audience. At the point where Anthony stresses Caesar’s lack of ambition and the
honour of his killers, there is no turning back. He manipulates and plays upon the feelings of the
audience, using Caesar’s will and damaged body as a trump card.
The style of Julius Caesar’s writing has been described as much more severe, making less prolific use
of images. This fits its nature as a political play. An anthropological approach of the play in this
context can be found in René Girard’s theories and principles: he argues that in human life, the
essential concept is ‘mimetic desire’, the desire to imitate, to be what someone else is. This of
course leads to conflicts, and very often these spread in society (like violence can for example do). In
such cases, a ‘sacrifice’ might be necessary as a form of catharsis. A person or group is blamed for
the mis-events (like, for example, the Jews). Girard applies this to several of Shakespeare’s plays; in
the case of Julius Caesar, Brutus seeks to become Caesar, which sets the events in motion. The tragic
protagonist, according to Girard, is then the violent crowd.
Caesar becomes the unbeatable champion, and this is what Brutus seeks to be. As the play develops,
he behaves more and more like the tyrant. The crowd shouts ‘Let him be Caesar’, which suggests the
mirror image of Caesar and Brutus. The conspiracy begins with Cassius, who is most definitely
inspired by envy, again an impulse of imitation. The mob adopts the violence of the murder, and as
such the crisis spreads. The final battle at Phillipae is no ordinary victory, but rather a rebirth of
degree, a return to peace rooted in Brutus’ suicide, a form of sacrifice. As such, the two deaths are
examples of foundational violence of the Roman Empire that bring back peace to society.