Asist. Univ. Elena Paliţă

INTRODUCTION TO THE SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA

Elena Paliţă

INTRODUCTION TO THE SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA

EDITURA “ACADEMICA BRÂNCUȘI”

TÎRGU-JIU

978-973-144-872-5

CONTENTS

1. WHO WAS SHAKESPEARE?

2. WHAT IS A DRAMA? INTRODUCTION TO

THE SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA

3. HAMLET

4. KING LEAR

5. ROMEO AND JULIET

6. RICHARD THE THIRD

7. FURTHER READING

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

WHO WAS SHAKESPEARE?

“The story goes that, before or after

[Shakespeare] died, he found himself

before God and he said: ‘I, who have

been so many men in vain, want to be

one man: myself.’ The voice of God

replied from a whirlwind: ‘Neither am I

one self; I dreamed the world as you

dreamed your work, my Shakespeare, and

among the shapes of my dream are you,

who, like me, are many persons – and

none.” (Borges, 1964: 47)

Shakespeare as a research topic is a challenge for anyone. This is why he

has been the source of such an important part of the world literary criticism. No

one will ever state that Shakespeare is no longer a fresh subject. His perpetual

recreation through various forms of art proves that there is always something

new to discover related to his work. Discussing about the importance of context

in the recreation of the Shakespearean drama M. Bristol said that “Every

performance of a play by Shakespeare requires complicated negotiation

between the demands of the play-text and the exigencies of the moment of its

performance. The thought and feeling of the author continues to resonate even

in historically distant contexts. At the same time, an actor’s performance can

reveal a semantic intonation that would not have been intelligible to the author’s

own public”. (M.D. Bristol, 1996: 28)

Why Shakespeare?

The idea of this book was born form a multitude of questions, some of

which may have a clear and doubtless answer, others remaining in the darkness

of mystery, but all of them being imminent for the understanding of

Shakespearean adaptive process. If one tries to search on the internet the

beginning of a possible question: “Is Shakespeare…”, three words appear

forming the first three questions of people regarding this author: Is Shakespeare

good, gay or real? Those who are interested in his work have stopped

wondering about the validity of his drama nowadays, as he has been fully

accepted as a contemporary character and author. The three questions prove that

Shakespeare is regarded as a living spirit that raises natural, but complex

interrogations in the mind of his reader.

Why Shakespeare? The decision to choose this topic was related to the

connections that the author manages to create throughout time, between the past

and the present. Another reason was his infinite adaptability in any kind of

artistic medium, which gave me the opportunity to develop the analysis

focusing on several areas such as literature, cinema, theatre, painting or opera.

It’s been said that all the facts we know about Shakespeare’s biography

fit onto a postcard. Not true. In fact, from contemporary records we have access

to more information about Shakespeare than any of his playwright colleagues.

The problem for Shakespeare is that, for all the extensive documentary

evidence, little gives us access to the man himself. Ben Jonson’s famous

declaration that Shakespeare was “not of an age, but for all time” actually points

up something rather discomforting – that in writing about his life it can be

difficult to pin him down.

The story of William Shakespeare’s life has its beginning and end in one

place: the bustling market town of Standford-upon-Avon, in an area where the

surname is still relatively commonplace. William Shakespeare was born directly

into this mercantile Midlands environment. His father John (c.1530-1601) was

most likely the son of a local farmer – John’s brother Henry, the playwright’s

uncle, was one as well – but like many of his generation moved from the

countryside into town, in John’s case to train as a glover, wool-dealer and

whittawer (skilled tanner of leather). William, too, might have taken up the

family trade for a few years, and indeed memories of it intermittently appear in

his written work. For his own part John seems not to have been able to write – a

pair of compasses, a symbol of his trade, is one of the marks he used in place of

a signature – and the same is apparently true for his wife Mary, who likewise

used a cross to sign her name.

The Shakespeares were typical in having a large family, and given that

their first two daughters, Joan (b. 1558) and Margaret (b.1562), both died in

infancy, it is easy to comprehend why. William was their first son, followed by

Gilbert (1566-1612), another Joan (1569-1646), Anne (1571-79), Richard

(1574-1613) and Edmund (1580-1607). All we know concerning William’s

arrival is that he was christened at Holy Trinity Church, Stratford, on April 26,

1564. The Shakespeares were then living in a large house in Henley Street - we

know because John was fined in 1552 for having an illegal rubbish-tip outside –

and as a consequence the building is now known , reverentially, as the

“Birthplace”.

This not overstatement to say that his father’s position and influence in

Stratford made Shakespeare’s subsequent career possible. Though the records

have since perished, it is almost certain that William attended the town’s King’s

New School, a grammar school foundation dating from the fifteenth century,

and as the son of an alderman he would have been guaranteed a place. Aside

from the teasing (and usually ironic) references to education in Shakespeare’s

plays, we don’t know a great deal more about this period of his life.

William Shakespeare got married in November 1582 to Anne Hathaway.

Shakespeare was just 18; Anne was 26 at the time over wedding, and she was

pregnant. The ceremony was rushed through: the couple were forced to apply

for a special license because the date fell during the church season of Advent,

when marriages were normally not performed, and had to travel to the bishop’s

court at Worcester in order to do so. In May, the following year, Anne gave

birth to their first child, Susanna, who was christened in Holy Trinity, Stratford.

Later on, in 1585, the twins Hamlet and Judith came in their life too.

His plays are of different kinds, or genres. There

are histories, tragedies and comedies. These plays are among the best known

in English literature and are studied in schools around the world. Shakespeare

wrote his works between about 1590 and 1613. He is considered the first writer

who wrote a tragicomedy. (A tragicomedy is a play that has features from

comedies and tragedies, there are hazards and difficulties, but the heroes are

able to overcome all the difficulties that they face and the play ends happily.

The plays are written in poetic language. Many of the plays were set in

places that would have seemed exotic to London audiences. His plays are still

popular today for many reasons. His characters (the people in his plays) are

interesting and talk about interesting ideas. The stories he tells in his plays are

often exciting, very funny (in the comedies), or very sad (in the tragedies) and

make people want to know what happens to his characters. He says much about

things that are still important today, like love, sadness, hope, pride, hatred,

jealousy, and foolishness.

Throughout the chapters of this study, Shakespeare proves to be a

challenge for those who dare to use his text in trying to recreate other original

works. Context becomes the key to the understanding of his adaptations.

However, this thesis proves that originality in the case of the Shakespearean

drama playing the role of an inspiration source can be achieved. The authors

analysed throughout the three chapters manage to convert the Bard’s plays into

adaptations that captivate the attention of their public. We can no longer talk

about a relation of inferiority or superiority between the original and its

adaptation or representation. It is not acceptable to consider secondary of an

alteration the product of an adaptive process.

There are some general questions: why is Shakespeare so popular all over

the world, why is Shakespeare an inspiration source for all the fields of artistic

interpretation, how can Shakespeare express the most subtle feelings and

thoughts of the human being or why is Shakespeare considered our

contemporary? Some of these have found answers; others remain under the sign

of doubt. Regarding Shakespeare’s popularity, we have proved that he is the

author who awoke the interest of literature all over the world. Shakespeare is a

transnational author. He crosses any border with his drama that extended

modernity’s interest for this literary genre.

These premises led the curiosity for the subject of many literary studies.

This enthusiasm has triggered my interest for what is Shakespeare's dramaturgy

on stage today, why critics who study Shakespeare, translators, theater critics,

linguists are debating with so much zest the manner in which Shakespeare

“must” be present in the contemporary human understanding or for the

understanding of theatre people today. And, in general, if the dramatic work of

William Shakespeare is still valid for the contemporary scenic creations. Why

and how today's filmmakers tackle the Shakespearean drama? What is their

motivation to bring to the modern stage a classical drama?

Through the variety of theatrical techniques and processes, disguising,

multiplication of the plans, "theatre within theatre", the actor who plays the role

of an actor, Shakespeare puts the basis of dramaturgy. Because the English poet

addresses drama both from the view of the craftsman, as well as that of the

philosopher, his texts have the allure of a constant challenge.

Connected with all the "impurities", the Shakespearean drama forms

another important compatibility with the theatrical reality of our days. The

succession of epilogues and prologues that are winning more and more

importance in nowadays performances or that fusion between the good and the

evil so appreciated by Peter Brook in Shakespeare's dramaturgy, which

intertwine to confusion, makes his texts to be stimulatory for the scenic art

today.

Shakespeare had equally divided his efforts between the four established

dramatic categories - tragedies, comedies, historical dramas and love stories -

and expanded the boundaries of the Elisabethan theater, with its empty, open

scene, in a unique manner, because his expressive language offsets the limited

scenic effects. From king to clown, Shakespeare is able to credibly apprehend

the great heroism in a character such as Hotspur from Henric IV and his

opposite in Falstaff, the young man’s tortured melancholy from Hamlet, and the

old man’s suffering from King Lear, the delicious mist of love in his comedies

as well as the alteration of love in Othello and Macbeth and the breathtaking

theatrichality from Richard III.

In a language of remarkable expressivity, ”woven from lightning and rays

of sunlight”, as Thomas Carlyle observed, Shakespeare exploited a much wider

vocabulary than any other English writer and made an unparalleled model of

breathtaking and functional imagery. But Shakespeare’s greatness lies

essentially not in its amplitude and virtuosity, but in the power of

communication, in the ability to reveal ourselves in the mirror of his art.

Shakespeare as a research topic is a challenge for anyone. This is why he

has been the source of such an important part of the world literary criticism. No

one will ever state that Shakespeare is no longer a fresh subject. His perpetual

recreation through various forms of art proves that there is always something

new to discover related to his work. Discussing about the importance of context

in the recreation of the Shakespearean drama M. Bristol said that “Every

performance of a play by Shakespeare requires complicated negotiation

between the demands of the play-text and the exigencies of the moment of its

performance. The thought and feeling of the author continues to resonate even

in historically distant contexts. At the same time, an actor’s performance can

reveal a semantic intonation that would not have been intelligible to the author’s

own public”. (M.D. Bristol, 1996: 28)

Through the variety of theatrical techniques and processes, disguising,

multiplication of the plans, "theatre within theatre", the actor who plays the role

of an actor, Shakespeare puts the basis of dramaturgy. Because the English poet

addresses drama both from the view of the craftsman, as well as that of the

philosopher, his texts have the allure of a constant challenge.

Connected with all the "impurities", the Shakespearean drama forms

another important compatibility with the theatrical reality of our days. The

succession of epilogues and prologues that are winning more and more

importance in nowadays performances or that fusion between the good and the

evil so appreciated by Peter Brook in Shakespeare's dramaturgy, which

intertwine to confusion, makes his texts to be stimulatory for the scenic art

today.

The English words are full of meanings, and William Shakespeare used it

in a poetic speech. Hence the endless interpretations from which he lends the

most valuable passages in his work. And any reading of his work, in any

language, culture or epoch is just one of the many possible interpretations.

Shakespeare's drama is extremely generous in this regard.

His work, particularly his dramatic texts are a permanent challenge. The

language of his creation is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time.

The precise words of his songs, from the poetic to the famous tirade expressions

of a mediocre, are priceless even in the world today, archived and studied,

discussed in major academies and theater scenes from around the world.

The literary critic Frank Kermode touched the subject of Shakespeare’s

longevity, in an indirect manner, talking about the Bard’s essential tragedies:

“What, then, can Shakespearean tragedy, on this brief view, tell us about human

time in an eternal world? It offers imagery of crisis, of futures equivocally

offered, by prediction and by action, as actualities; as a confrontation of human

time with other orders, and the disastrous attempt to impose limited designs

upon the time of the world. What emerges from Hamlet is--after much futile,

illusory action--the need of patience and readiness. The 'bloody period' of

Othello is the end of a life ruined by unseasonable curiosity. The millennial

ending of Macbeth, the broken apocalypse of Lear, are false endings, human

periods in an eternal world. They are researches into death in an age too late for

apocalypse, too critical for prophecy; an age more aware that its fictions are

themselves models of the human design on the world. But it was still an age

which felt the human need for ends consonant with the past, the kind of end

Othello tries to achieve by his final speech; complete, concordant. As usual,

Shakespeare allows him his tock; but he will not pretend that the clock does not

go forward.”1 1 http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/468827-what-then-can-shakespearean-tragedy-on-this-brief-view-tell

Kermode’s wonderful speech brings to light the perpetual struggle of the

human being with the limitations of this world and consequently our eternal loss

and the inevitable awareness of our weaknesses. Maybe this is the exact reason

that makes Shakespeare, a valid author even centuries after his death, maybe

this is the logical explanation of his longevity.

Trying to answer a similar question whether Shakespeare should be

buried or born again, in relation to the idea of his contemporaneity Andrzej

Zurowski gave an interesting answer: “Shakespeare has sometimes been our

contemporary and could be so in the future, but only on the condition that he is

translated into the questions of our time and takes on the colour of our historical

personality.” (John Elsom, 2004: 169)

WHAT IS A DRAMA?INTRODUCTION TO THE SHAKESPEAREAN

DRAMA

THE STAGE AND ITS FUNCTIONS

The theatre represents an authoritative pattern of order. Its power consists in the

possibility of offering a physical presence to a fluid reality and simultaneously,

of deconstructing it.

The functions of the theater are:

- To inform, instruct and educate (didactic function)

- To explore, interpret and disclose: a hermeneutic act which, according to

Martin Heidegger, discloses the “Being towards possibilities” (a

potentiality for being) and permits ontological analyses

- To take the world apart in order to repair, improve and restore it (the

carnival principle). Comic and deviant forms, mistakes and

misunderstandings are used to break the social cohesion and to oblige

people to return through catharsis to a wise and tolerant acceptance of the

official system. Laughter and irony mean rebirth and renewal, reuniting

the individuals with their collectivity and reawakening their feelings of

solidarity.

- To develop archetypes and mythical models

- To create forms of collective life and common understanding

- To cure people of their obsessions, flaws and manias (therapeutic

function)

- To stir the imagination of the audience and give shape to human desires

- To help the audience undergo a spiritual adventure, find time for

meditation and fun.

THEATRE AS AN OPEN CYBERNETIC SYSTEM is based on

INTERACTION between:

- actor – actor

- actor – public

- spectator – spectator, spectator – non-spectator

In all these cases, the exchange of messages is based on a combination of

verbal and non-verbal signs. The verbal signs are the words combined in

a dialogue (between two or more characters who exchange messages),

monologues (the character addresses other characters present on the stage

without letting anyone else say anything), soliloquies (when a character

utters his thoughts aloud on the stage addressing the audience directly or

indirectly) and asides (when a character addresses the audience without

being heard by the other characters). In the case of the non-verbal signs,

paratext is added, formed of the text of the author – title, dedications and

the metatext (stage directions). When the play is staged the director also

has to take into account other non-verbal signs, such as: elements of

setting, stage properties, make-up, dressing, sound effects, music, lights,

mimicry, gestures which all create what it is called the transposition of

the text, which permits a permanent renewal of the play.

The Renaissance pattern: The chain of being

In his work Shakespeare does not clearly state a philosophy of his own.

Each character judges life in his or her own way, each temperament has

its appropriate conception. However, a well defined image of the universe

is common to all the characters. It is based on what the Elizabethans

called “The Great Chain of Being”, an idea derived from the Greeks

(Plato, Aristotle) and developed during the Middle Ages by Christian

philosophers. It considers the universe as a strict hierarchy, patterned

from the lower minerals to God in the following order:

- Stones – characterized by being

- Plants – characterized by being and growing

- Animals – characterized by being, growing, sense

- Man – characterized by being, growing, sense, and reason

- Angels – characterized by pure reason

- God – characterized by pure actuality

The human beings are placed in the middle in the chain. They are

the knot and the chain of the nature – “nexus and naturae vinculum” - ,

having both the instinctual characteristics of the animals and the spiritual

power of angels. In order to preserve the equilibrium of the universe,

people have to fight against inferior instincts in favour of the workings of

the mind. When they follow their instincts instead of their reason, they sin

against degree and authority.

The body and mind of man form a microcosm which reduplicates

the perfection of the macrocosm and is linked to it in a harmonious

whole. The four humours or liquids of the body correspond to the four

cosmic elements:

Blood = air, hot and moist, spring

Choler = fire, hot and dry, summer

Melancholy = earth, cold and dry, autumn

Phlegm = water, cold and moist, winter

They determine man’s temperamental and emotional inclinations

and are in equilibrium as long as no humour dominates.

The Shakespearean tragedies

The dramatic functions of the tragedy are:

- The function of information – the documentary interest in historical

events

- The function of entertainment – the desire to be amused by comic scenes

These functions give way to more profound cognitive, psychological,

metaphysical, even religious analyses. Shakespeare insists on the

importance of man’s power and freedom to decide. In different moments

of their lives, people are faced with a course of action that implies choice.

As long as they have not chosen they are not free. They become victims

of their own decisions and have to submit to the omnipotence of Destiny.

The principle of death in tragedies has nothing peaceful and

reconciliatory in it: it is a negative, weakening and destructive force.

Beyond it, however, a strong retributive power can be felt. Since in the

pre-Christian, pagan world of the tragedies the strong moral order can

only temporarily be transgressed, the evil-doer has always to be punished

so that the equilibrium of the universe be restored.

HAMLET

Hamlet was probably written in late 1599 or early 1600, though possibly a year

or two years later, that is, at the beginning of the period of Shakespeare’s

mature tragedies. In order of composition, it probably falls between „Julius

Caesar” (1599) and „Othello” (1604). „Hamlet” was first published in 1603 by

Nicholas LING and John TRUNDELL in a QUARTO edition titled „The

Tragicall Histoire of Hamlet” printed by Valentine Simmes and in 1604 in a

superior quarto edition printed by John Roberts and published by him and Ling.

Also, “Hamlet” was published in the FIRST FOLIO edition of Shakespeare’s

plays in 1623.

Shakespeare’s basic source for „Hamlet” was the „Ur-Hamlet” (1588), a play on

the same subject that is known to have been popular in London in the 1580 but

for which no text survives. This work, believed to have been written by Thomas

KYD, was apparently derived from a tale in François BELLEFOREST’s

collection „Histoires Tragiques” (1580). The raw material that Shakespeare

appropriated in writing “Hamlet” is the story of a Danish prince whose uncle

murders the prince’s father, marries his mother, and claims the throne. The

prince pretends to be feblee-minded to throw his uncle off guard, then manages

to kill his uncle in revenge. Shakespeare changed the emphasis of this story

entirely, making his Hamlet a philosophical-minded prince who delays taking

action because his knowledge of his uncle’s crime is so uncertain.

Shakespearean “Hamlet” can be studied as a Revenge play influenced by

Seneca, the father of this genre. Shakespeare has revived the Senecan tragedy,

in this sense, it is a Renaissance play. Here, Shakespeare uses the scene of

violence, killing, murdering and bloodshed as Seneca used in his tragedy to

satisfy the need of Elizabethan audiences. This revival made it Renaissance

play. As a Renaissance character, Hamlet is suffering from the hangover

between the medieval belief of superstition and reason, the belief of

Renaissance.

Title character of Hamlet, the prince of Denmark, Prince Hamlet is required

by his murder father’s Ghost to take vengeance on the present monarch, his

uncle, king Claudius, which committed the murder and then married the widow

of his victim, Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude. Hamlet’s troubled response to

this situation, his disturbed relations with those around him, and his eventual

acceptance of his destiny constitute the play.

Top three things every student should know about the play are:

1) The most famous of the five Soliloques delivered by Hamlet over the play

begins, “To be or not to be, that is the question.” Here, Hamlet is

considering suicide. He finally decides against doing so, however,

reasoning that as life can sometimes be, it is preferable to death, which

might be even worse.

2) Hamlet’s central characters are Hamlet himself, Claudius, Gertrude,

Ophelia, Polonius, Laertes, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Horatio, but

only Horatio survives when the curtain falls at the end of Shakespeare’s

play. Another central character, Hamlet’s father King Hamlet, appears

only as a ghost. He has been dead since before the play began.

3) If the character of Hamlet has a tragic flaw, it may be his inability to act

decisively. On the other hand, his occasionally impulsiveness, for

example, in rejecting Ophelia and stabbing Polonius, results in death and

destruction as well.

In the word of Ernest Johnson, the dilemma of Hamlet is to disentangle

himself from the temptation to wreak justice for the wrong reasons and in evil

passion, and to do what he must dot at last for the pure sake of justice and from

that dilemma of wrong feelings and right actions, he

ultimately emerges, solving the problem by attaining a proper state of mind.

Hamlet endures as the object of universal identification because his central

moral dilemma transcends the Elizabethan period, making him a man for all

ages. In his difficult struggle to somehow act

within a corrupt world and yet maintain his moral integrity, Hamlet ultimately

reflects the fate of all human beings, even in this day and age. From the outset,

„Hamlet” has been recognized as

one of the greatest works of the English stage, and it has remained the most

widely produced of Shakespeare’s plays. In common with several other

Shakespeare plays, there is a clear Christian parallel.

The action happens in a dark winter night when Hamlet's father ghost visits

the castle. Prince Hamlet is depressed. Having been summoned home to

Denmark from school in Germany to attend his father's funeral, he is shocked to

find his mother Gertrude already remarried. The Queen has wed Hamlet's Uncle

Claudius, the dead king's brother. To Hamlet, the marriage is "foul incest."

Worse still, Claudius has had himself crowned King despite the fact that Hamlet

was his father's heir to the throne. Hamlet suspects foul play.

When his father's ghost visits the castle, Hamlet's suspicions are

confirmed. The Ghost complains that he is unable to rest in peace because he

was murdered. Claudius, says the Ghost, poured poison in King Hamlet's ear

while the old king napped. Unable to confess and find salvation, King Hamlet is

now consigned, for a time, to spend his days in Purgatory and walk the earth by

night. He entreats Hamlet to avenge his death, but to spare Gertrude, to let

Heaven decide her fate.

Hamlet vows to affect madness — puts "an antic disposition on" — to wear

a mask that will enable him to observe the interactions in the castle, but finds

himself more confused than ever. In his persistent confusion, he questions the

Ghost's trustworthiness. What if the Ghost is not a true spirit, but rather an agent

of the devil sent to tempt him? What if killing Claudius results in Hamlet's

having to relive his memories for all eternity? Hamlet agonizes over what he

perceives as his cowardice because he cannot stop himself from thinking.

Words immobilize Hamlet, but the world he lives in prizes action.

In order to test the Ghost's sincerity, Hamlet enlists the help of a troupe of

players who perform a play called The Murder of Gonzago to which Hamlet has

added scenes that recreate the murder the Ghost described. Hamlet calls the

revised play The Mousetrap, and the ploy proves a success. As Hamlet had

hoped, Claudius' reaction to the staged murder reveals the King to be

conscience-stricken. Claudius leaves the room because he cannot breathe, and

his vision is dimmed for want of light. Convinced now that Claudius is a villain,

Hamlet resolves to kill him. But, as Hamlet observes, "conscience doth make

cowards of us all."

In his continued reluctance to dispatch Claudius, Hamlet actually causes six

ancillary deaths. The first death belongs to Polonius, whom Hamlet stabs

through a wallhanging as the old man spies on Hamlet and Gertrude in the

Queen's private chamber. Claudius punishes Hamlet for Polonius' death by

exiling him to England. He has brought Hamlet's school chums Rosencrantz and

Guildenstern to Denmark from Germany to spy on his nephew, and now he

instructs them to deliver Hamlet into the English king's hands for execution.

Hamlet discovers the plot and arranges for the hanging of Rosencrantz and

Guildenstern instead. Ophelia, distraught over her father's death and Hamlet's

behavior, drowns while singing sad love songs bemoaning the fate of a spurned

lover. Her brother, Laertes, falls next.

Laertes, returned to Denmark from France to avenge his father's death,

witnesses Ophelia's descent into madness. After her funeral, where he and

Hamlet come to blows over which of them loved Ophelia best, Laertes vows to

punish Hamlet for her death as well.

Unencumbered by words, Laertes plots with Claudius to kill Hamlet. In the

midst of the sword fight, however, Laertes drops his poisoned sword. Hamlet

retrieves the sword and cuts Laertes. The lethal poison kills Laertes. Before he

dies, Laertes tells Hamlet that because Hamlet has already been cut with the

same sword, he too will shortly die. Horatio diverts Hamlet's attention from

Laertes for a moment by pointing out that "The Queen falls." Gertrude,

believing that Hamlet's hitting Laertes means her son is winning the fencing

match, has drunk a toast to her son from the poisoned cup Claudius had

intended for Hamlet. The Queen dies.

As Laertes lies dying, he confesses to Hamlet his part in the plot and

explains that Gertrude's death lies on Claudius' head. Finally enraged, Hamlet

stabs Claudius with the poisoned sword and then pours the last of the poisoned

wine down the King's throat. Before he dies, Hamlet declares that the throne

should now pass to Prince Fortinbras of Norway, and he implores his true friend

Horatio to accurately explain the events that have led to the bloodbath at

Elsinore. With his last breath, he releases himself from the prison of his words:

"The rest is silence."

The play ends as Prince Fortinbras, in his first act as King of Denmark,

orders a funeral with full military honors for slain Prince Hamlet.

Main Characters

Ghost Character in Hamlet, the spirit of the murdered king of Denmark,

Hamlet’s late father. The Ghost, which has been silent in its appearances before

the play opens and in 1.1 and 1.4, speaks to Hamlet in 1.5, revealing the secret

of his death— “Murder most foul” (1.5.27) at the hands of his brother, the

present King Claudius—and insisting that Hamlet exact revenge. This demand

establishes the stress that disturbs Hamlet throughout the play. The Ghost

reappears in 3.4 to remind Hamlet that he has not yet accomplished his revenge,

there by ncreasing the pressure on the prince.

The Ghost pushes Hamlet to face the trauma of his father’s murder and

his mother’s acceptance of the murderer. It keeps his anguish sharp. However,

the Ghost is absent at the end of the drama. It has represented the emotional

demands of Hamlet’s grief and despair; when Act 5 offers the play’s

reconciliation of good and evil, the Ghost has no further function.

Hamlet, the prince of Denmark , title character of Shakespearean

tragedy, and the protagonist. Prince Hamlet is required by his murdered father’s

Ghost to take vengeance on the present monarch, his uncle, King Claudius, who

committed the murder and then married the widow of his victim, Hamlet’s

mother, Queen Gertrude. Hamlet’s troubled response to this situation, his

disturbed relations with those around him, and his eventual acceptance of his

destiny constitute the play. Hamlet is almost universally considered one of the

most remarkable characters in all of literature. When he becomes emotionally

unstable, he harms an entire kingdom. Hamlet's reckless behavior causes the

death of Polonius in Act III, the suicide of Ophelia in Act IV, and with an assist

from Claudius' murder of Hamlet's father, the destruction of the royal family in

Act V. The turmoil in Denmark is an outward manifestation of Hamlet's inner

conflict and inability to act to restore the sanctity of the throne. Hamlet’s

salvation—his awareness of his human failings—comes only with his death.

The playwright leaves us assured that his tragic hero has finally found peace.

King Claudius of Denmark murderer and royal successor of Hamlet’s

father and husband of his victim’s widow, Queen Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother.

The central issue of the play is the conflict between Hamlet’s desire for

vengeance against the King. Claudius is a cunning politician whose lust for

power and the queen set the play's tragic acts in motion. We see Claudius'

human side in the love he bears for his wife and his acknowledgment of wrong-

doing as he attempts to pray, but his unwillingness to give up those things he

gains from his treachery

speaks to his rotten character. Hamlet frequently contrasts Claudius, the

smooth-talking, corrupt politician to the fierce, honorable, warrior king he

unlawfully replaces.

Queen Gertrude of Denmark is the Hamlet’s mother, who has married

the brother,

successor, and murderer of the king of DENMARK, her late husband. It is

unclear what role Gertrude has in the death of her first husband and whether or

not she and Claudius had aldulterous relations before King Hamlet's death. It is

clear, however, that the queen places great importance on social and political

status and uses the men in her life to secure it. Although the

Queen provides an example of the evil that infects Denmark, she herself

is a somewhat faceless character. She is basically evil through weakness rather

than inclination. The Ghost attributes her wickedness to Claudius and tells

Hamlet to exclude her from his revenge—

“Leave her to heaven”. In her main scene, in which Hamlet repudiates her for

her adultery

and her acceptance of the King as a husband, she acknowledges her guilt, crying

out that her soul is contaminated by “. . . such black and grained spots / As will

not leave their tinct” . After Hamlet leaves and the King returns in 4.1, the

Queen resumes her role as his accomplice.

But when the Queen turns on her husband and cries out a warning to Hamlet as

she dies, we may

suppose that her son has had some effect on her.

Polonius Character in Hamlet, a minister of the King Claudius of

DENMARK. Polonius, the father of Ophelia and Laertes, loves intrigue and

resorts to espionage whenever possible. Polonius speaks some of the plays most

famous and profound lines. Ironically, he's a blowhard buffoon who fails to

follow his own advice. Hamlet recognizes him for the hypocrite he is and scolds

him in his madness. Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius with his sword as

Polonius hides behind a curtain in the Queen's room spying despite Polonius'

warning to his son to stay out of others' quarrels.

Ophelia Ophelia is Hamlet's love interest, whom she spurns on the

advice of her father. She becomes her father's pawn in his efforts to spy on

Hamlet and demonstrates no will of her own, allowing herself to be

manipulated by her father and brother and both loved and scorned by Hamlet.

Like Hamlet, Ophelia goes mad after her father's death and drowns herself.

Laertes son of Polonius and brother of Ophelia, who seeks vengeance

against Hamlet for his father’s murder. Laertes is placed in direct contrast with

Hamlet by the fact that each

seeks and finally achieves revenge for his father’s murder, although they do so

in very different ways. Laertes is distinctly unheroic. He stoops to fraud and

poison with no thought for consequences or morality. Yet at the close of the

play he regrets his under handedness, offers forgiveness in place of vengeance,

and is himself forgiven. For Laertes and Hamlet’s father’s death and

reappearance as the Ghost—they come together at its close to represent

the conjunction of good and evil in humanity, a fact whose acceptance is the

play’s major theme.

Horatio Character in Hamlet, friend and confidant of Prince Hamlet.

Horatio is the one person in Hamlet’s world whom the prince values and trusts.

With Horatio he can speak freely,

and in doing so he demonstrates the evolution of his emotions. Horatio is a calm

and stoical figure whom Hamlet admires as “A man that Fortune’s buffets and

rewards / Hast ta’en with equal thanks . . . [a] man/ That is not passion’s

slave” . Horatio is the man Hamlet wants to be.

He is intelligent, but not driven by his intellectual creativity. Horatio loves

Hamlet so much that he would rather impale himself on his own sword than live

on after Hamlet's death. Hamlet passionately demonstrates his own deep love

and admiration for Horatio in his request that Horatio tell Hamlet's story.

Hamlet trusts his friend enough to leave him the task of finding the

words that will divine the truth. For Hamlet, entrusting the task to Horatio

declares his love better than expressing that love through any of Hamlet's poetry

or philosophy. Action has at last spoken louder than words.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Two characterin Hamlet, courtiers who

assist King Claudius of DENMARK in his plots against Hamlet. Only once, and

only in some editions, does one appear without the other. So familiar as a

couple, and so similar to each other are this pair, that they are best dealt with as

a unit. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz were notable Danish family names of the

16th century Shakespeare was surely as delighted as we are by the faintly

comical tone conveyed by the combination of these grand names (see, e.g.,

2.2.33–34), but they also help to convey the foreignness of the play’s locale.

Basic Criticism

The Shakespearean criticism had its originating point in Robert Green’s

remark about the young playwright as “an upstart Crow, beautified with our

feathers” (1592) who perhaps was jealous of Shakespeare’s literary powers.

However, narrative poems of Shakespeare were published and the author

succeeded in being included in lists of eminent Elizabethan authors. Next,

authors like Francis Meres, Anthony Scolokar and others expressed their

admiration for the manner in which he wrote.

For many early nineteenth-century readers of Shakespeare the stage was

inappropriate for the plays. Romantic authors believed that Shakespeare’s works

were better read and studied than performed. One of them, Charles Lamb said:

“the plays of Shakespeare are less calculated for performance on a stage, than

those of almost any other dramatist”. Lamb’s objection for performance was

partly because the difficulty of separating the character from the actor. For

example, Hamlet is an interior character and as Lamb said, “nine parts in ten of

what Hamlet does, are transactions between himself and his moral sense” or

“silent meditations with which his bosom is bursting, reduced to words for the

sake of reader”. Therefore the question was: “How can they (the profound

sorrows of Hamlet) be represented by a gesticulation actor, who comes and

mouths them out before an audience, making four hundred people his confidents

at once?” while the original Hamlet is certainly not a character who express his

feelings in front of others.

Another author, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, sustained Lamb’s ideas

claiming Shakespeare as a poet whose works are “not for the physical vision”.

“They contain much of spiritual truth than of spectacular action”. For example,

Hamlet’s ghost and other minor scenes from the play get their force and value

from imagination. “In reading, all these things pass easily through our minds,

and seem quite appropriate, whereas in representation on the stage they will

strike us unfavourably and appear not only unpleasant but even disgusting.”

(LeWinter, 1970).

However, there were critics who were not as impressed as the Romantic

ones were by Hamlet’s character. One example was Schlegel who believed that:

“he is not solely compelled by necessity to artifice and dissimulation; he has a

natural inclination for crooked way”. He believed also that the message of the

play was a fearful one as the end of the drama did not represent an example of

justice because in the final “the less guilty and the innocent are equally involved

in the general ruin”.

Hazlitt also gave his opinion about Hamlet arguing that “we have been so

used with this tragedy that we hardly know how to criticize it any more than we

should know how to describe our own faces”. Therefore Hamlet was believed to

have been a play which “abounds in striking reflections on human life”. Hazlitt

also said about Hamlet’s character: “Whatever happens to him we apply to

ourselves, because he applies it so himself as a means of general reasoning”.

A. C. Bradley’s “Shakespearean Tragedy” had also a great contribution

for Hamlet’s criticism, containing two chapters on each of the four tragedies

Othello, King Lear, Macbeth and Hamlet where he argued against the view

taken by others critics of the intrinsic mystery of Hamlet. Bradley recognized

that Hamlet appealed to our sense of the mystery of life but that was specific to

every good tragedy and it did not mean that the hero was an enigma to us too.

Even though there were bad and good critics about Shakespeare’s tragedy

Hamlet, this play is still popular today after so many years after it was written.

The reason is simple: the play will always have a lot of interesting questions to

be asked about. A good example may be if Hamlet is really pretending to be

mad or he is actually insane. In conclusion, we have the chance to be also one of

the multitude of critics who gave their opinion about Hamlet due to the fact that

in literature there can be lots of interpretations.

Hamlet’s tragic flaw

Many critics, accepting the dictum of Aristotle that a tragic hero must

have some flaw in character or judgment that will lead him to actions

ending in disaster, have sought to discover Hamlet’s tragic flaw.

1. Hamlet is indecisive. He tends to think too carefully, analyse too

thoroughly, to intellectualize. The result is that he procrastinates.

Because of the delays, he permits the king too many opportunities to

escape his judgment and prepares the way for his own defeat.

2. Hamlet suffers from a severe melancholia. This sensation of

depression makes participation in daily affairs, like spending time

with Ophelia or with his mother or with his friends, or any action like

accusing or attacking the king, appear meaningless.

3. Hamlet is consumed by an arrogant egotism. He conceives of

himself as being superior to all other persons, especially the ordinary

mortals that clutter the earth. This makes him move towards his

revenge alone and unaided. Without advice or help, his views

distorted by conceit, he must fail.

4. Hamlet possesses a deep moral sensibility. He is so shocked by the

evil and corruption of the world, that he becomes immobilized. He

sees the correction of the world’s ills as an impossible task.

5. Hamlet possesses a high idealism. He looks for nobility and loyalty

in others, especially those he loves. He expects human beings to be

ruled by reason and not by the hope of personal gain or the desire for

position or power. His disappointments slow him down.

Text Analysis

On the one hand Hamlet strikes us as the most modern of Shakespeare's heroes,

caught ip ina mine of questioning and doubt that seems all too familiar to us in

the twentieth century.On the other hand,the story of Hamlet has its roots in the

most primitive strata of the imagination,a tale of blood and vengeance, the kind

of legend found at the fountainhead of many of the great literatures of the west

including Greek and Morse. Thus Hamlet has a peculiarly rich texture it has

passages that sound as they could come from an Elizabethan translation of the

Iliad,but at other Times the dialogue seems to anticipate a work like Waiting

for Godot.

Hamlet lies as it were halfway between ancient and modern tragedy as Hegel

conceives them. As it often the case in Shakespeare the textual situation in

Hamlet is complex readere interested in the details should consult any scholarly

edition such as Evans's Suffice it to say here that we are faced with two

authoritative texts of the play.

Though most editors use the second Quarto text as the basis for their editions it

cannot simply be preferatele to the Folio text.

The uncertainty about the text of Hamlet is troulling and should be borne in

mind in any analysis, we are not dealing with two distinctive versions of the

play. We can arrive at a similar understanding of Hamlet if we consider its place

in Shakespeare's career as a dramatist

The question that rises within everybody minds is : why does the prince delay in

taking his revenge in the man who murdered his father.

As soon as he learns of the guilt of his uncle,he promisses 'to sweep' to his

'revenge' with 'eings as swift as meditation'.

And yet he does not kill the king immediately, and his delay costs the lovește of

his mother Gertrude , Ophelia,her father Polonius, her brother Laertes as

wellness as Hamlet's old friends , Rosencrantz and Guildestern.

Above all it is Hamlet himself who raises the question of why he delays his

revenge: 'I doar not know why yet I live to say ' This things to do, Sith I have

cause and will And strength and means to do

The prince hesitates to kill Claudius because he identifies himself too closely

with his uncle, as a man who acted out Hamlet's secret desires, namely to kill

his father and to marry his mother.

And in his intensely dramatic encounter with his mother in the third act Hamlet

does not appear to lose emotional control and to dwell uppon the sexual details

of his mother's relation with his uncle with an obsesiveness that borders on the

pathological Hamlet must be one of the most succesorul play ever written.

In analysing the dramatic structure of Hamlet we will discuss it on the

traditional five-act play.

One aspect of Shakespeare's achievements remains to be considered his use of

language.The play has become as famous for his poetry as for its drama.

Shakespeare was aware that elevated and even inflated diction is characteristic

of courtly speakers, but was also aware that there are degrees of elevation and

inflation.

With its elaborate syntax and tendency toward circumlocution, this speech is

clearly in the high style of the court.

If we consider Claudius's speech is clearly that he express himself in the high

style of the could obviously express in a simplar and more direct fashion,but his

aim is to impress with his newly acquired dignity as a monarch.

In his attempt to define madness the stylistic principle of artful variation

collapses into tautology.

His speech is clearly a performance and he takes obviously pleasure in his own

verbal skill.

Nu calling attention to his linguistic tricks he makes his listeners

concentrate ,not in what he is saying .

In short Shakespeare skillfully manages to diferentiate the strained but still

basically dignified idiom of Claudius from the forced and bombastic idiom of

Polonius, which contributes to our impression of him as a ludicrous old man.

Hamlet here carries the courtly inflation of diction to new extremes pouring

fourth a cascade of fancy words.Hamlet overuses the standard devices of courtly

retoric, but the democratic context still allows us to discriminate between their

voices.

Because Polonius speaks the way it does on his own initiative ,his language

come across as unconcious self parody.

Because Hamlet by contrast is provoked into his mode of speech and is clearly

responding to Osric,his speech strikes us as intentional parody,a clever

expression of his contempt for the court.

The pointer is that Shakespeare shows his genius in the minor details of Hamlet

as well. The man who could write'to be of not to be'could also create the

distinctive idiom of Osric,and both achievements contribute to the succese of

Hamlet as a whole.

KING LEAR

King Lear is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare. It depicts the

gradual descent into madness of the title character, after he disposes of his

kingdom giving bequests to two of his three daughters based on their flattery of

him, bringing tragic consequences for all. Derived from the legend of Leir of

Britain, a mythological pre-Roman Celtic king, the play has been widely

adapted for the stage and motion pictures, with the title role coveted by many of

the world's most accomplished actors.

KING LEAR” is, in its picture of the tragic effect of human weakness and

human cruelty, the most overpowering of the works of Shakespeare. It was

written about 1605, in the middle of that period of his activity when he was

interested, for whatever reason, in portraying the suffering and disaster that are

entailed by defects of character, and the terrible cost at which such defects are

purged away; and not even “Hamlet” displays these things so irresistibly.

The germ of the story is found in the folk-lore of many ages and countries.

Attached to the name of Lear, the legend assumed pseudo-historical form with

Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century, was handed down through the

long line of Latin and English chroniclers, appeared in collections of tales,

found a place in Spenser’s “Faerie Queene,” and was dramatized by an

anonymous playwright about ten years before the date of Shakespeare’s drama.

To Shakespeare himself is due the tragic catastrophe which takes the place of

the traditional fortunate ending, according to which the French forces were

victorious, and Lear was restored to his kingdom. He first makes Lear go mad;

invents the banishment of Kent and his subsequent disguise; creates the Fool;

and, finally, connects with Lear the whole story of Gloucester and his sons.

  This skilfully interwoven underplot is taken from Sidney’s “Arcadia,” in

which a story is told of a king turned against his legitimate son by the slanders

of his bastard. The pretended madness of Edgar, and the love of the wicked

daughters for Edmund are inventions of Shakespeare’s.

  But these details are not the only means by which the improbable legend is

converted into the most tremendous of tragedies. This is done chiefly by the

intensity with which the characters are conceived: the imperiousness and

intellectual grasp of Lear, the force and subtlety of Edmund, the venom of the

wicked daughters, the tenderness of Cordelia, the impassioned loyalty of Kent,

the unselfishness of Edgar, and the poignant candor of the faithful Fool.

King Lear is the play (“King Lear has long had a reputation as the ultimate in

tragedy(…)”Dickson Andrew,The Riugh guide to Shakespeare,p.184;) what

William Shakespeare's brought a real success.William Hazlit said that this play

is the best of Shakespeare's plays, because when he wrote, was more serious

than ever.”( William Hazlitt,Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays,1817Oxford

University Press,London,1996,p.119;)”

Structured in five acts and twenty-five scenes,tragedy presents an action full

conflicts and moods impressive.It opens with two counts discussion (Kent and

Gloucester) on the decision of the king of Britain, Lear,to divide the kingdom of

three daughters (Goneril, Regan and Cordelia).But for that dividing the

kingdom to be correct,he puts love to the test, asking them how much love him.

Goneril si Regan brought flattering words of his father,impressing him:”I

love you more than word can wield the matter;Dearer than eyesihgt,space and

liberty;Beyond what can be valued,rich or rare(...)”;”(...)Myself an enemy to

all other joys,Which the most precious square of sense possesses,And find I am

alone felicitate,In your dear Highness’love.” ( Shakespeare Wiilliam,King Lear,

Publishing by European institute,2000,p.48)

But Cordelia,youngest of girls ,doesn't want to be flattering and tells the king

that she loves as a daughter she is fitting duty to love their father:”Unhappy that

I am ,I cannot heave,My heart into my mouth.I love your Majesty,According to

my bond,no more nor less”.

Honesty these does not impress the King Lear, but rather it decides to divide

and that the third part of the kingdom two daughters older (will to live one

month at a time on each side), denying it but the dearest:”I love her most,and

thought to set my rest,On her kind nursery.Hence and avoid my sight!So be my

grave my peace,as here I give,Her father’s heart form here!(...)”.

Count Kent King is trying to change the king's decision, but he calls he

unfaithful:”LEAR:Out of my sight!;KENT:See better,Lear,and let me still

remain,The true blank of thine eye”;(...)Think’st thou that duty shall have dread

to speak,When power to flattery bows?To plainness honor’s bound,When

majesty falls to folly(...)”.

Furious, he invites the house to the king of France and the Duke of Burgundy

(two suitors of Cordelia) to decide who will take of wife.But King says to the

two suitors that his daughter left without fortune.Upon hearing this, the Duke of

Burgundy withdraws:”Pardon me,royal sir.Election makes not un in such

conditions(...);I am sorry then you have so lost a father.Than you must lose a

husband”.

King of France but do not hesitate to marry the girl:”Fairest Cordelia,that art

most rich being poor.Most choice forsaken,and most loved despised,Thee and

thy virtues here I seize upon.Be it lawful I take up what’s cast away”.Cordelia

say goodbye to her sisters, but leaves sad knowing that they will not take care of

their father.”Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides,Who covers faults,at

last shame them derides.Well may you prosper.”

But two daughters give up at the suite of the Knights their father because they

are too many and put to agree to not to please their father.

From now begin degradation and disturbance the King Lear.Rejected by two

daughters, he chooses to stay with his knights.During a raging storm, left with

his jester, King Lear shelter in Kent Count urge in a small hut.,, (...) Where hut

what, man? We need to cherish and quickly learn the most humble things. "

”The tempest in my mind,Doth from my sense take all feeling else,Save what

beats there.(...)”.Being in that place his royal Lear pity the afflicted.”(Poor

naked wretches,wheresoe’er you are,That bide the pelting of this pitiless

strom(...)O,I have ta’en too little care of this!)”

There they meet Edgard(Son of the Earl of Gloucester) them that possessed by

evil spirits, they no longer recognize:”Who gives anything to poor Tom?”

Thinking he was in that state because all daughters, she sympathizes King Lear

and consider him a philosopher.”Didst thou give all to thy daughters? And art

thou come to this?(…)What, has his daughters brought him to this pass?(…)”

The story of King Lear can be placed in mirror struggle between sons Earl of

Gloucester, Edmund and Edgar. Edmund, the illegitimate son weave a lot of

intrigue against his brother Edgar (who, like Cordelia, is the embodiment of

goodness and justice) to remain the only heir.

Later, Earl of Gloucester, King Lear finds him without recognizing him on

Edgard.

He proposes to go with him to Dover, troubled but he does not want to leave

without his philosopher (Tom). And decided to take him, they go to Dover.

Debargarea threatened with Regan's husband, the Duke of Cornwall, ii out

Gloucester's eyes but he is killed by a servant.

Hearing that his father is not well, Cordelia starts looking for his faithful with

Kent.

Being that it asks the doctor will make it better.

Awakened eyes of his daughter, he recognizes and realizes the fact that his

youngest loves most.

With love and power of forgiveness unimaginable Cordelia embraces his father.

But happiness does not last long because the British army enters France, and

they are taken hostage. Widow, Regan decides to remarry Edmund, jealous

sister, puts poison in the glass during a party for winning the war.

No later after this, Edmund was killed by itself or paternal brother, this time a

courtier Edgard.In notifies the Duke of Albany that his wife Gordelia is

dead.Upon hearing this news Edmund admits that:”I was contracted to them

both:all three,Now marry in an instant”.

In the last scene, King Lear, appeared carrying in his arms theinanimate body

of his daughter Cordelia.

Later it not being able to support his daughter's death dies:”And my poor fool is

hanged no,no,no life?Why should a dog,a horse,a rat,have life,And thou no

breath at all?Thou’It come no more,,never,never,never,never,never.Pray you

undo this button.Thank You,sir.Do you see,her lips,look there,look there.(he

dies)”.

The scene closes with a funeral march, instead of King Lear kingdom will

reign in Britain humble Edgard:”The weight of this sad time we must

obey,Speak want we feel,not what we ought to say.The oldest hath borne

most:we that are young,Shall never see so much,nor live so long.”

The characters of King Lear are few in number.In front of our eyes it is

depicted as if all humanity,not just a few people.

The characters of King Lear are either very good or very bad.Besides Lear

and Gloucester,the other characters are divided into two groups,namely good

characters group and bad characters group.Thus,we have on the one hand on

Cordelia,King of France,Albany,Kent,Jester and Edgar,and on the other hand on

Goneril,Regan,Burgundy,Cornwall,Oswald and Edmund.However,no character

is entirely good or bad,except maybe Cordelia and Cornwall.The theme piece is

the relationship of humanity with the universe and the characters are obviously

different as shown in this universe.

‘’Between Lear and Gloucester there are many similarities and

differences.Both heroes are old,gullible,essentially good,but self-centered,both

don’t see initially reality and rejects the children who love then and who will

care later,both retract the natural connections between parent and child,trust in

children will disown them,both undergoing great pain will evolve in terms of

knowledge-Lear will wise in ‘’crazy’’,Gloucester will begin to see in

‘’blindness’’.On the other hand,Lear is characteristic active,’’Lear without

wondering if he’s right,others impose their will;Gloucester will accept others

without asking themselves whether they are right’’(R.B.Heilman),Gloucester

‘’has ignored its responsabilities more seriously,let it work

itself’’(J.Wain).When they realize the harmthey have done,Lear will crazy,and

Gloucester tries to commit suicide.’’-William Shackespeare-Regele Lear-

Univers Enciclopedic,Bucuresti,1997-Pagina 223.

King Lear is King of Britain.Lear is the protagonist whose willingness to

believe empty flattery leads to the deaths of many people.In relying on the test

of his daughters love,Lear demonstrates that he lacks common sense or the

ability to detect his older daughters falseness.When receiving insults,Lear is

helpless,but often respond to problems with swearing,even with a physical

attack when he was challenged.King Lear is stubborn.Although he is scared for

his future refuses to obey decisions of others.Thus,King Lear wants to be

responsible for its destiny.In finally,Lear displays regret,remorse,empathy and

compassion for the poor,a population that Lear hasn’t noticed before.

Goneril is Lear’s eldest daughter.After,she get a half of the kingdom of the

king,she betrays him.Goneril is responsible for his actions.Thus,for the

punishment of Glaucester,Goneriland Regan are described as some cruel

people.Finally,Goneril is willing to lose the kingdom,but not a man.

Regan is Lear’s second daughter.Regan appears as a gentler person,more

likeable,because she greets her father with politeness,but her deportment is

deceptive.Regan doesn’t really respect the father,she just pretending.

Cordelia Lear’s youngest daughter.Cordelia really loves his father,being

opposite sisters.She is described as Christ or the goodness of God,because she

wants to make his father suffer and isn’t adept at revenge.

Fool is a loyal member of the king’s court.The Fool assumes the role of

Lear’s protector when \cordelia is banished.

Gloucester is blind to the events occurring around him.He is depicted as

a foolish old man.Gloucester apart from his youngest son,Edmund,who is

merely an opportunist.Like Lear,Gloucester feels despair and questions a

god,and like Lear,Gloucester finds his humanity,in the midst of his tragedy.

Earl of Kent or Caius Lear’s loyal friend and supporter.Kent is honest

and he will not lie to his king.He is a good-heart,who loves his king.Kent feels

that his job on earth is to serve his king.

Edmund Gloucester’s younger,illegitimate,son.Edmund shows no

hesitation,no any concern about killing the king or Cordelia.In finally,Edmund

tries to rescind his order to execute Cordelia and Lear.

Edgar or Poor Tom Gloucester’s older son.He is Gloucester’s only

legitimate their.Edgar is an honest person,dignity,a person who accepts the

defect his father,who is bind.The manner in which Edgar addresses his father

indicates compassion and understanding.

Albany accepts that nature’s pattern is essential for survival.Duke Albany

Goneril’s husband.He finds the strength to resist his wife’s efforts to have Lear

killed.

Duke of Cornwall Regan’s brutal husband.He is vicious and savage as he

tries to eliminate Lear and Gloucester.

Oswald Goneril’s steward.Oswald is a willing accomplice to Goneril’s

plotting and proves a foil to Kent’s devotion to Lear.

King of France marries Cordelia.

Duke of Burgundy is suitor for Cordelia.Burgundy rejects Cordelia

when he discovers that she will bring him no dowry.

Curan Gloucester’s servant.

Old Man is tenant of Gloucester.

Doctor is attendant to Cordelia.

Servants to Cornwall Cornwall’s retainers,who attack him in defense of

Gloucesters.

In conclusion, ‘’between ‘’good’’ and ‘’bad’’ characters is an inevitable

effect of a balanched approach,universalized,activity of mankind on earth.

Basic criticism

Shakespeare’s plays open themselves up to a world of interpretation.

There were many movements in literary criticism during the

twentieth century, with each new discipline rejecting or reworking the ideas of

previous critics. A range of conflicting views of King Lear emerged. A major

development in Shakespearean criticism came with the publication of A.C.

Bradley’s Shakespearean Tragedy in 1905. Bradley believed that it was possible

to understand a text and the playwright’s intentions through close reading. He

focused on character and motivation. For Bradley a Shakespearean tragedy is

the tragedy of an individual who suffers as he comes to terms with his

personality. Bradley made many criticisms of King Lear, commenting on

careless inconsistencies, the loose, episodic structure and the unwieldy subplot.

However, he also conceded that the play was “one of the world’s greatest

poems’’ (A.C. Bradley’s Shakespearean Tragedy, 1905, p.15). For him Lear

was a great, superior figure, whose suffering is heart-rending. Bradley also felt

that this solemn tragedy was essentially unfathomable. Although Bradley’s

emphasis on character has been rejected by recent critics, many would agree

that King Lear remains impossible to pin down.

Also, critical opinion since Shakespeare has been more divided on King

Lear than perhaps any other play. Called ”too savage and shocking” by Joseph

Warton (P.M. Griffith, ”Joseph Warton’s criticism of Shakespeare”- Tulane

Studies in English, 1965, p.27), ”impossible to be represented on a stage” by

Charles Lamb (Charles Lamb ”On the Tragedies of Shakespeare” 1810, p.10),

and even Harold Bloom in Shakespeare - The Invention of the Human argues

for a moratorium on stagings of Lear in favour of solitary readings. Leo Tolstoy

so disliked the play, he used it in a pamphlet to attack Shakespeare and said that

”Shakespeare might have been whatever you like, but he was not an artist”

(Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Crosby, BernardShaw, Vladimir Tchertkoff, Isabelle Fyvie

Mayo, Tolstoy on Shakespeare – A critical essay on Shakespeare, 2009, p.14) .

G. Orwell countered with a meticulous essay, painstakingly going through each

of Tolstoy's arguments and refuting them and still came to the conclusion

that King Lear is not a very good play - ”It is too drawn-out and has too many

characters and sub-plots”(G.Orwell, The collected Essays. Journalism and

letters. 21. Tolstoy and Shakespeare, printed in the Listener, 5 June 1941).

Recently however, the critical mass of opinion has moved in favour of the

play, particularly in the last century. G. Wilson Knight in ”The Wheel of Fire”

explored the hugeness of the world of the play -”King Lear is great in the

abundance and richness of human delineation, in the level focus of creation that

builds a massive oneness, in fact, a universe”...( The Wheel of Fire, 1930, p.

45 ).

Also, in King Lear and the Comedy of the Grotesque, Wilson Knight

explored the absurd cruelty in the play. ”The tragedy is most poignant in that it

is purposeless, unreasonable. It [King Lear] is the most fearless artistic facing of

the ultimate cruelty of things in our literature. That cruelty would be less were

there not this element of comedy … Mankind is, as it were, deliberately or

comically tormented by “the gods”. He is not even allowed to die tragically”

(G. Wilson Knight, King Lear and the comedy of the grotesque, ND, p.160).

This view of the play marks a departure from previous accounts of King Lear.

Up to now, there had been very little emphasis on the (horrible) comedy of the

play, even though the cruelty and absurdity had been noted before.

From G. Wilson Knight in 1930 onwardsthe play's literary qualities have

provoked much fine criticismfrom critics including R. B. Heilman, W. H.

Clemen, andWinifred Nowottny. Twentieth-century critics including J.F.

Danby, Barbara Everett, W. R. Elton, Jan Kott, and manyothers concentrated on

the question of whether the playembodies fundamentally Christian values or is

fundamentallypessimistic. Other topics of discussion and, sometimes,

controversyhave included the play's structure, its relationship tothe morality

tradition, the credibility of, especially, theopening scene, whether the blinding

of Gloucester and thedeath of Cordelia are dramatically justifiable, and

whetherLear dies happily or in despair. Critics such as Maynard Mackand

Marvin Rosenberg have drawn on the play's performancehistory, and more

recent criticism includes studies relating itto feminist, historicist, and materialist

issues.

If we talk about feminism we can say that feminist criticism of Lear

incorporates a similar range of contrasting views. For Coppelia Kahn King Lear

is a play about male anxiety. Kahn suggests that Lear breaks down when he

refuses to accept that he is dependent on his daughters, that he needs the

feminine. Lear goes mad because he cannot face his feminine side; he refuses to

cry. When Lear learns to weep, and rediscovers a loving non-patriarchal

relationship with Cordelia, he is redeemed. In Kahn’s view the play affirms

femininity as a positive force.

Kathleen McCluskie’s reading of King Lear asserts the opposite view.

For her, Lear is an anti-feminine play. She suggests ”the misogyny of King

Lear, both the play and its hero, is constructed out of an ascetic tradition which

presents women as the source of the primal sin of lust, combining with concerns

about the threat to the family posed by female insubordination”(Kathleen

McCluskie, The Patriarchal Board, 1985, p.60). Her arguments are based on her

recognition that the ”action of the play, the organisation of its points of view

and the theatrical dynamic of its central scenes all depend upon an audience

accepting an equation between “human nature” and “male power”’(Kathleen

McCluskie, The Patriarchal Board, 1985, p.65). McCluskie points out that the

play forces us to sympathise with the patriarchs, Lear and Gloucester, and the

masculine power structure they represent. She does not feel that Shakespeare

presents a movement towards the feminine in King Lear, rather the reverse.

”Family relations in this play are seen as fixed and determined, and any

movement within them is portrayed as a destructive reversal of the rightful

order”. For McCluskie ”Cordelia’s saving love, so much admired by critics,

works … less as a redemption of womankind than as an example of patriarchy

restored””(Kathleen McCluskie, The Patriarchal Board, 1985, p.69). The

audience is forced to agree that evil women (Gonerill and Regan) create a

chaotic world, and must be resisted. The feminine must either be made to

submit (Cordelia) or destroyed (Gonerill and Regan).

Critical commentary varies and appears exhaustive. A. C. Bradley speaks

of evil, but thinks Lear dies in a moment of supreme joy; G. W. Knight argues

that however vicious and cruel the Lear universe is, the death of Cordelia

represents the future triumph of love. N. Frye writes of Lear's madness as our

sanity if it were not sedated as if the universe is fundamentally absurd. G.

Snyder says that Lear dramatizes the phases of dying that we all endure, and

that Lear dies because he is warn out by the exhaustion of life. P. Rackin

comments that the play moves through a dialectical process of reconciliation of

opposites that culminate in Lear's triumph of faith. G. Hennedy notes the

existential approach saying that the Lear dies secure in the knowledge that

Cordelia lives after death, having experienced a transcendence, the paradox of

[in a Christian sense] that hope comes from the cross. W. Donner writes that the

catharsis experience the end of the play affords us is the belief that justice has

not been done; how could it, and we cannot forget the tremendous potential man

has for evil that no one but God could forgive. Harris argues that the promised

end is dramatized by the ending of Lear, and that the final words of the play

make the meaning clear.

TEXT ANALYSIS

King Lear is a play which melts a mix of themes and motifs, in order to

depict characters’s states or analyse types of situations.

In the begin of the play, the conversation between Kent, Gloucester and

Edmund introduces the idea of King Lear about kingdom’s division, but Lear

has not revealed all his plan (“Gloucester: It did always seem so to us; but now,

in the division of the kingdom, It appears not which of the dukes he values

most” Act 1, Sc.1 3-5). The next lines mirrors the illegitimate son topic.

(‘’Kent: Is not this your son, my lord?

Gloucester: His breathing, sir, hath been at my charge. I have so often blushed

to acknowledge him, that now I am brazed to ‘t.’’), a truthly offensive

explanation; in other words, he is blaming Edmund’s existence, considering it

“a fault” of his wife (“This young fellow’s mother could; whereupon she grew

round wombed, and had indeed, sir, a son for her cradle ere she had a husband

for her bed. Do you smell a fault?” (Act 1 sc 1). Those lines suggest that

Gloucester does not love his son, he only agreed him because of his mother, a

relevant reason for a future war between Edmund and Gloucester, a ,,domestic

tragedy’’, revealed also in the relationship between Lear and his daughters.

The theme of power is emphasized in the play through the giving up on

the kingdom

(Lear: Meantime we shall express our darker purpose[…]know that we have

divided/ In three our kingdom; and ‘tis our fast intent/ To shake our cares an

business from our age […] A1 S1). The crown is a symbol af the loss of power

and authority and a deep broken relationship father-daughters on one hand, and

a loss of authority of the king with his subjects on the other hand. For instance,

the answer to Lear’s question ‘’What two crowns shall they be?” is Fool’s joke,

who sais that ,,When thou clovest thy crown i’ th’ middle and gav’st away both

parts, thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown […]”

Lear’s decision to divide his kingdom among Goneril, Regan and Cordelia

determins a real civil war, a family crisis. Kingdom falls into chaos and Lear

becomes the victim of his own rashness as consequence of his decision to share

the estate between two of his daughters, Goneril and Regan, after the love test,

in which the two women flatter him with mere words, while Cordelia sais his

love can not be expressed in words. King Lear, who has spent a lifetime being

flattered by courtiers and can’t make the difference between truth and empty

flattery, disinherits Cordelia considerin she does not love him enough. King

Lear demonstrates that words are meaningless as proof of love; only actions

matter. After Lear banishes Cordelia and Kent for speaking their opinions,

Lear’s Fool is the only character who tells the king the truth.

The opera mirrors also the theme of society and class, it is not onlya family

drama; King Lear critique some real problems of the Elisabethan Age, like class

and politics, mental illness, the relationship between generations, the

illegitimate son topic and so on. Another important theme is the theme of

loyalty: in a society which is unstable political, in order to survive, the

characters are focused on saving their own skins, but there are some characters

in the play who demonstrate an extraordinary loyalty, such as Kent, Cordelia,

Edgar and The Fool. The loyalty in this case means suffering, even death. In

Aristotle’s Poetics, tragedy “requires an audience to undergo catharsis, which

is the purgation or cleansing of the emotions of pity and fear.’’ .

King Lear portrays what happens when the body and mind deteriorate so does

the soul. According to Salked Duncan’s Madnessand drama in the age of

Shakespeare, ‘’Lear’s madness is slow and progressive throuought the play.’’ In

Act 3 , S1, when Kent asks the gentleman who is out in the storm, he replies

with “One minded like weather, most unquietly”. On the other hand, Edgar also

reveals another kind of madness; he is hiding his true identity to escape capture

from Edmund and higher authorities, so he presents himself as ‘’Poor Tom’’.

The tragedy of King Lear is considered one of Shakespeare’s greatest

dramatic masterpieces. The protagonist descends into madness after foolishly

deposing his kingdom between unworthy Goneril and Regan, based on their

flattery, bringing tragic consequences for all. The play is about political

authority as much as it is about family crisis. Offering his kingdom, Lear

delivers his estate into chaos and cruelty. Blindness in the master theme of the

play. Lear’s mental blindness is completed by Gloucester’s physical blindness.

When the two characters realize their faults is too late. Following

Macchiavelli’s quotes, ‘’great men cannot cover great sins’’.

Many critics argue that King Lear, while containing honorific incidents, is

ultimately positive and optimistic because it rewards goodness through

redemption and punishes evil, because the death of the hero is followed by the

restoration of order. Kent remains uncontaminated by the evil around him,

Albany grows in moral stature through the course of the play. According to

Bradley, ‘’it is essentially a tale of suffering and calamity conducting to

death.’’ Shakespearean tragic heroes are kings, princes or people very important

for their states. The tragedy is an example of the struggle between good and

evil. Edward Dowden says that ‘’Tragedy as conceived by Shakespeare is

concerned with the ruin or restoration of the soul and the life of man’’ . The

death of the hero is not an unordinary death, it is the loss of exceptionally,

honest, genius, noble and virtuous personality.

ROMEO AND JULIET

This tragedy occurs in 1596 and is divided into five acts: the first two are

structured comedy rules, and these rules after the tragedy.

In William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, a long feud between the Montague

and Capulet families disrupts the city of Verona and causes tragic results for

Romeo and Juliet. Revenge, love, and a secret marriage force the young star-

crossed lovers to grow up quickly — and fate causes them to commit suicide in

despair. Contrast and conflict are running themes throughout Shakespeare's

play, Romeo and Juliet — one of the Bard's most popular romantic tragedies.

Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare early in

his career about two young star-crossed lovers whose deaths ultimately

reconcile their feuding families. It was among Shakespeare's most popular plays

during his lifetime and along with Hamlet, is one of his most frequently

performed plays. Today, the title characters are regarded as archetypal young

lovers.

Romeo and Juliet belongs to a tradition of tragic romances stretching

back to antiquity. The plot is based on 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 1567. Shakespeare borrowed

heavily from both but expanded the plot by developing a number of supporting

characters, particularly Mercutio and Paris. Believed to have been written

between 1591 and 1595, the play was first published in a quarto version in

1597. The text of the first quarto version was of poor quality, however, and later

editions corrected the text to conform more closely with Shakespeare's original.

Shakespeare's use of his poetic dramatic structure (especially effects such

as switching between comedy and tragedy to heighten tension, his expansion of

minor characters, and his use of sub-plots to embellish the story) has been

praised as an early sign of his dramatic skill. The play ascribes different poetic

forms to different characters, sometimes changing the form as the character

develops. Romeo, for example, grows more adept at the sonnet over the course

of the play.

Romeo and Juliet, the first romantic tragedy of Shakespeare, based on an Italian

romance by Bandello frequently translated into English. Shakespeare’s play was

probably written in 1595, first printed in corrupt form in 1597 authentic second

quarto ,1599.

The Montagues and the Capulets, the two chief families of Verona, are

the at bitter enmity . Romeo, son of old Lord Montague, attends, this disguised

by a mask, a feast given by old Lord Capulet. He sees and falls in love with

Juliet, daughter of Capulet, and she with him.

After the feast he overhears, under her window, Juliet’s confession of her

love for him, and wins her consent to a secret marriage.With the halp of Friar

Laurence, they are wedded next day. Mercutio, a friend of Romeo, meets

Tybalt, of the Capulet family, who is infuriated by his discovery of Romeo’s

presence at the feast, and they ,and Mercutio falls.

Then Romeo draws and Tybalt is killed. The duke with Montague and

Capulet come up, and Romeo is sentenced to banishment. Early next day, after

passing the night with Juliet, he leaves Verona for Mantua, conselled by the fiar,

who intends to publish Romeo’s marriange at an opportune moment. Capulet

proposes to marry Juliet to Count Paris, and when she seeaks excuses to avoid

this, peremptorily insists.

Juliet’s consults the friar, who bids her consent to the match, but on the

night before the wedding drink a potion which will render her apparently

lifeless for 40 hours . Hi will warn Romeo, who will rescue her from the vault

on her awakening and carry her to Mantua.

Juliet does his bidding. The fiar’s message to Romeo miscarries, and

Romeo ears that Juliet is dead. Buying poison, his comes to the vault to have a

last sight of Juliet.

He chances upon Count Paris outside the vault; they fight and Paris is

killed. Then Romeo, after a last kiss on Juliet’s lips, drinks the pison and dies.

Juliet awakes and finds Romeo dead by her side and the cup still in his hand.

Guessing what has happened, she stabs heself and dies. The story is unfolded by

the fiar and Cout Paris’s, page Montague and Cpulet, faced by the tragic results

of their enmity, are reconciled.

The scene opens with a brawl on the streets of Verona, Italy, a fight

between servants from the affluent Montague and Capulet households. While

attempting to stop the fight, Benvolio is drawn into the fray by Tybalt. The fight

rapidly escalates, as more citizens become involved and soon the heads of both

households appear on the scene. At last, Prince Escalus arrives and stops the

riot, forbidding any further outbreaks of violence on pain of death.

Paris, a relative of the prince, asks Capulet for his daughter Juliet’s hand in

marriage. Capulet invites Paris to a feast to be held that night. But Romeo,

Benvolio, Mercutio, and others from the Montague household make their way

to the Capulet feast. With their masks concealing their identity, they resolve to

stay for just one dance. Romeo sees Juliet and falls in love with her instantly.

Tybalt recognizes Romeo’s voice and sends for his rapier to kill him. A violent

outburst is prevented as Capulet insists on Tybalt’s obedience, reminding him of

Romeo’s good character and the need to keep the peace.

Romeo and Juliet continue their exchanges and they kiss, but are interrupted by

the Nurse, who sends Juliet to find her mother. In her absence, Romeo asks the

Nurse who Juliet is and on discovering that she is a Capulet, realizes the grave

consequences of their love. The feast draws to a close and Romeo leaves with

Benvolio and the others. Juliet then discovers from the Nurse that Romeo is a

Montague.

Romeo hopes to see Juliet again after falling in love with her at first sight

during the Capulet masquerade ball. He leaps the orchard wall when he hears

Mercutio and Benvolio approaching. His friends are unaware that Romeo has

met and fallen in love with Juliet. Romeo stands in the shadows beneath Juliet’s

bedroom window. Juliet appears on the balcony and thinking she’s alone,

reveals in a soliloquy her love for Romeo. She despairs over the feud between

the two families and the problems the feud presents. Romeo listens and when

Juliet calls on him to “doff ” his name, he steps from the darkness saying, “call

me but love.” After the two exchange expressions of devotion, the Nurse calls

Juliet from the balcony. Juliet leaves, but returns momentarily. They agree to

marry. Juliet promises to send a messenger the next day so that Romeo can tell

her what wedding arrangements he has made. The scene concludes as day

breaks and Romeo leaves to seek the advice of Friar Laurence.

Romeo arrives at Friar Laurence’s cell as day breaks. The Friar is collecting

herbs and flowers while he postulates on their powers to medicate and to

poison. Romeo tells him of his love for Juliet and asks the Friar to marry them

later that day. The Friar is amazed and concerned, but agrees to help the couple

in the hope that the marriage might ease the discord between the two families.

Romeo goes and tells the Nurse that Juliet should meet him at Friar Laurence’s

cell at 2 p.m. that afternoon to be married. The Nurse is to collect a rope ladder

from Romeo so that he can climb to Juliet’s window to celebrate their wedding

night. She tells Juliet that she is to marry Romeo that afternoon at Friar

Laurence’s cell. The Nurse then leaves to collect the rope ladder that Romeo

will use to climb into Juliet’s bedroom that night.

Romeo and Friar Laurence wait for Juliet, and again the Friar warns Romeo

about the hastiness of his decision to marry. Romeo agrees, but boldly

challenges “love-devouring death” to destroy his euphoria. The friar then warns,

these violent delights have violent ends. Juliet arrives and the Friar takes them

into the church to be married.

That day, Tybalt is looking for Romeo, but Benvolio wishes to avoid a

confrontation with the Capulets; however, Mercutio is deliberately provocative

and tries to draw Tybalt into an argument so

that they can fight. Romeo appears and Tybalt insults him, hoping he will

respond to the

challenge, but Romeo refuses because he is now related to Tybalt through his

marriage to Juliet. Mercutio, disgusted by Romeo’s reluctance to fight, answers

Tybalt’s insults on Romeo’s behalf. Tybalt and Mercutio draw their swords and

fight. To stop the battle, Romeo steps between them and Tybalt stabs Mercutio

under Romeo’s arm. Mercutio’s wound is fatal and he dies crying “A plague o’

both your houses!” Blinded by rage over Mercutio’s death, Romeo attacks

Tybalt and kills him. Romeo is forced to flee a mob of citizens as the Prince, the

heads of the two households, and their wives appear at the scene. After

Benvolio gives an account of what has happened, the Prince banishes Romeo

from Verona under the penalty of death and orders Lords Montague and Capulet

to pay a heavy fine.

Juliet waits impatiently for night to fall so that she can celebrate her wedding

night with Romeo. The Nurse arrives and in her grief, misleads Juliet into

thinking that Romeo has been killed. When the Nurse eventually reveals that it

is Tybalt who is dead, Juliet’s fears are only slightly relieved. Upon hearing that

Romeo has been banished, Juliet is overwhelmed by grief. The Nurse tells Juliet

that Romeo is hiding at Friar Laurence’s cell and Juliet sends the Nurse with a

ring, bidding Romeo to come and “take his last farewell.”

Friar Laurence tells Romeo that the Prince has sentenced him to banishment

rather than death. Romeo is distraught because he regards banishment as a form

of living death when he cannot be with Juliet.

The Friar tries to reason with Romeo, but young Romeo is inconsolable—” with

his own tears made drunk.” The Nurse arrives and tells Romeo of Juliet’s grief.

Hearing this, Romeo tries to take his own life, but is prevented by the Nurse.

The Friar advises Romeo to go to Juliet that night as he had planned, and then

before daybreak, flee to Mantua. The Friar promises to find a way to announce

Romeo and Juliet’s marriage publicly and thereby gain a pardon for Romeo to

return safely.

Late on Monday evening, Capulet and Paris discuss how Juliet’s grief over

Tybalt’s death has prevented Paris from continuing his courtship of Juliet.

Suddenly, as Paris prepares to leave, Capulet offers him Juliet’s hand in

marriage. He tells Paris that Juliet will obey his patriarchal wishes and marry

Paris on Thursday. Paris eagerly agrees to the arrangements, and Lady Capulet

is sent to convey the news to Juliet.

At dawn on Tuesday morning, Romeo and Juliet make their final exchanges of

love before Romeo leaves for Mantua. The lovers try to resist the coming day

that heralds their separation by pretending that it is still night and that the bird

they hear is the nightingale and not the lark, a morning bird. However, the

ominous threat of the Prince’s sentence of death finally forces the lovers to part.

Juliet’s mother arrives and, believing that Juliet weeps for Tybalt rather than the

departure of Romeo, tries to comfort Juliet with her plan to have Romeo

poisoned. Lady Capulet then tells Juliet the happy news that she is to marry

Paris on Thursday. Juliet is stunned and tells her mother that she cannot be

married in such haste. Her father enters expecting to find Juliet excited about

the wedding he arranged on her behalf. When she expresses opposition, he

becomes enraged and demands that Juliet obey his “decree” and prepare to be

wed. The Nurse tries to defend Juliet, but to no avail. Capulet threatens to

disown his daughter if she continues to oppose him. The scene concludes with

the Nurse advising Juliet to obey her father, and Juliet

resolves to seek the advice of Friar Laurence.

On Tuesday morning, Paris tells Friar Laurence of his proposed marriage to

Juliet—a wedding scheduled to take place in two days. The Friar expresses

concern that the wedding has been arranged too quickly, and he offers various

reasons to delay the ceremony. Paris believes that Capulet hastened the nuptials

out of concern for Juliet’s grief over Tybalt’s death.

Juliet arrives at the Friar’s cell and manages to cleverly sidestep Paris’

compliments and references to their upcoming marriage. Paris then leaves, and

Juliet begs the Friar for a solution to her tragic dilemma because she fears that

death is her only option. The Friar offers Juliet a remedy—a sleeping potion that

she is to take on Wednesday night, the evening before the wedding. The potion

will render Juliet unconscious, and she will appear to be dead for 42 hours,

during which time her body will rest in the family tomb. In the meantime, the

Friar will let Romeo know of this plan. Juliet immediately agrees and leaves

with the potion.

Juliet returns to the Capulet house to find wedding preparations well underway.

She tells her father that she will abide by his wishes and agree to marry Paris.

Lord Capulet is so overjoyed at the news that he decides to move the wedding

from Thursday to Wednesday. Lady Capulet protests, saying that such quick

notice doesn’t allow enough time to prepare, but the euphoric Lord Capulet

ignores her. Juliet is now to be married the following morning.

Juliet and her nurse make the final preparations for the wedding that is to take

place the following morning. Lady Capulet offers her assistance, but Juliet asks

to be left to her prayers and sends the Nurse and her mother away. Juliet then

reflects on the Friar’s plan. She wonders if the Friar has given her actual poison

to cover his role in marrying a Capulet and a Montague. She decides she must

trust the Friar. However if the potion fails to work, she resolves to die rather

than marry Paris. To that end, she places a dagger by her bedside.

The scene opens early on Wednesday morning. The Nurse enters Juliet’s room

and discovers her seemingly lifeless body on the bed. The Nurse tries to wake

her, but believing her to be dead, cries out to the family in desperation. The

Capulets, Friar Laurence, and Paris enter the room in response to the

Nurse’s cries. They dramatically mourn Juliet’s loss while the Friar maintains

his deception by offering words of support about Divine Will, comforting the

family by expressing the belief that Juliet is in heaven. He then arranges for

Juliet’s body to be taken. Capulet orders that the wedding preparations be

changed to funeral preparations. The scene concludes with a comic interlude

between the wedding musicians and Peter, a Capulet servant,as they engage in

bawdy wordplay.

In Mantua, Romeo mistakenly believes that his dreams portend good news

because he dreamed that Juliet found him dead but revived him with her kisses.

Romeo’s servant, Balthasar, then reports to Romeo that Juliet has died. Romeo,

controlling his grief, makes plans to return to Verona. He offers a poor

apothecary a large amount of money to sell him poison illegally. The poison

will enable Romeo to be reunited with Juliet in death.

Friar Laurence discovers that Friar John, the messenger he sent to Mantua with

a letter to Romeo explaining that Juliet is alive, has been quarantined because of

an outbreak of the plague and prevented from leaving Verona. Friar Laurence

then hurries to the Capulet tomb because it is nearly time for Juliet to wake.

Paris arrives at the Capulet tomb to lay flowers in Juliet’s memory. His page

warns him that someone is approaching, and they hide in the bushes outside the

tomb. Romeo appears with Balthasar and breaks into the tomb on the pretext of

seeing Juliet one last time. Balthasar, apprehensive about what Romeo is going

to do and fearful of Romeo’s wild looks, also hides himself outside the tomb.

Paris, believing that Romeo has come to desecrate the bodies in the tomb,

confronts Romeo. Romeo tries to warn Paris off, but Paris challenges Romeo

and they fight. Paris is wounded and dies. Just before he dies, he begs Romeo to

place him in the tomb next to Juliet. Romeo is filled with compassion and grants

his wish. Paris’ page, who has watched the fight, goes to call the night

watchman.

Romeo is dazzled by Juliet’s beauty even in death. Without hesitation, he kisses

her, drinks the poison, and dies at her side. A moment later, the Friar arrives and

discovers the dead bodies of Romeo and Paris. Juliet then wakens from her

death-like sleep and looks for Romeo, saying,

“Where is my Romeo?” Upon seeing the bodies of Romeo and Paris, she

resolves to remain in the tomb. The Friar tries in desperation to convince Juliet

to leave as the night watchman approaches, but Juliet refuses. The Friar flees,

and Juliet is alone with Romeo and Paris dead at her side. She tries to drink

poison from Romeo’s vial. Finding it empty, she tries to kiss some poison from

his lips. Hearing the night watchman approach, Juliet fatally stabs herself with

Romeo’s dagger. The night watchman and the Prince arrive shortly,

accompanied by the Capulets and Lord Montague. Lady Montague has died of

grief at Romeo’s banishment. The Friar faithfully recounts the events of the past

week and offers his life in atonement. The Prince acknowledges the Friar’s

benevolent intent and instead lays the blame for the deaths squarely on

Montague and Capulet for their longstanding quarrel. The Prince also blames

himself for his leniency and fines Montague and Capulet severely. The two

families are finally reconciled as the Prince ends the play by saying, “For never

was a story of more woe / Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.

MAIN CHARACTERS

Juliet- Capulet’s daughter. She is presented as a young and innocent adolescent,

not yet 14 years old. Her youthfulness is stressed throughout the play to

illustrate her progression from adolescence to maturity and to emphasize her

position as a tragic heroine. Juliet’s love for Romeo gives her the strength and

courage to defy her parents and face death twice.

Romeo- Montague’s son, who is loved and respected in Verona. He is initially

presented as a comic lover, with his inflated declarations of love for Rosaline.

After meeting Juliet, he abandons his tendency to be a traditional, fashionable

lover, and his language becomes intense, reflecting his genuine passion for

Juliet. By avenging Mercutio’s \death, he sets in motion a chain of tragic events

that culminate in suicide when he mistakenly believes Juliet to be dead.

Mercutio- Kinsman to the prince and friend of Romeo. His name comes from

the word mercury, the element which indicates his quick temper. Mercutio is

bawdy, talkative, and tries to tease Romeo out of his melancholy frame of mind.

He accepts Tybalt’s challenge to defend Romeo’s honor and is killed, thus

precipitating Romeo’s enraged reaction during which Romeo kills Tybalt.

Tybalt- Lady Capulet’s nephew and Juliet’s cousin. Tybalt is violent and hot-

tempered, with a strong sense of honor. He challenges Romeo to a duel in

response to Romeo’s attending a Capulet party. His challenge to Romeo is taken

up by Mercutio, whom Tybalt kills. Romeo then kills Tybalt.

The Nurse- Juliet’s nursemaid, who acts as confidante and messenger for

Romeo and Juliet. Like Mercutio, the Nurse loves to talk and reminisce, and her

attitude toward love is bawdy. The Nurse is loving and affectionate toward

Juliet, but compromises her position of trust when she advises Juliet to forget

Romeo and comply with her parents’ wishes and marry Paris.

Friar Laurence- A brother of the Franciscan order and Romeo’s confessor,

who advises both Romeo and Juliet. The Friar agrees to marry the couple in

secret in the hope that marriage will restore peace between their families. His

plans to reunite Juliet with Romeo are thwarted by the influence of fate. The

Friar concocts the potion plot through which Juliet appears dead for 42 hours in

order to avoid marrying Paris. At the end of the play, the Prince recognizes the

Friar’s good intentions.

Mr.Capulet -Juliet’s father is quick-tempered and impetuous but is initially

reluctant to consent to Juliet’s marriage with Paris because Juliet is so young.

Later, he changes his mind and angrily demands that Juliet obey his wishes. The

deaths of Romeo and Juliet reconcile Capulet and Montague.

Paris- A noble young kinsman to the Prince. Paris is well-mannered and

attractive and hopes to marry Juliet. Romeo fights and kills Paris at the Capulet

tomb when Paris thinks that Romeo has come to desecrate the bodes of Tybalt

and Juliet.

Benvolio- Montague’s nephew and friend of Romeo and Mercutio. Benvolio is

the peacemaker who attempts to keep peace between Tybalt and Mercutio. After

the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt, Benvolio acts as a Chorus, explaining how

events took place.

Lady Capulet-Juliet’s mother,Lady Capulet is vengeful and she demands

Romeo’s death for killing Tybalt. In her relationship with Juliet, she is cold and

distant, expecting Juliet to obey her father and marry Paris.

Montague- Romeo’s father, who is concerned by his son’s melancholy

behavior.

Balthasar- Romeo’s servant. He brings Romeo the news in Mantua that Juliet

is dead.

An Apothecary- A poverty-stricken chemist, who illegally sells poison to

Romeo.

Escalus- Prince of Verona The symbol of law and order in Verona, but he fails

to prevent further outbreaks of the violence between the Montagues and

Capulets. Only the deaths of Romeo and Juliet, rather than the authority of the

prince, restore peace.

Friar John -A brother of the Franciscan order, sent by Friar Laurence to tell

Romeo of his sleeping potion plan for Juliet. The Friar is prevented from getting

to Mantua and the message does not reach Romeo.

Lady Montague-Romeo’s mother

In contrast with Lady Capulet, Lady Montague is peace-loving and dislikes the

violence of the feud. Like her husband, she is concerned by her son’s withdrawn

and secretive behavior. The news of Romeo’s banishment breaks her heart, and

she dies of grief.

Peter- A Capulet servant attending the Nurse.

Abram -A servant to Montague.

Sampson- Servant of the Capulet household.

Gregory- Servant of the Capulet household.

BASIC CRITICISM

″It′s perhaps the most timeless Shakesperian image of all:the star–

crossed lovers,united by their passion yet doomed to be kept apart.But Romeo

and Juliet is all about time,and the fact that the lovers are given so little time

with each other lends their love affair a volatile and dramatic intensity.″

(Andrew Dickson,″The Rough Guide To Shakespeare″)

Robert Jackson said that in Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare creates

a world of violence and generational conflict in which two young

people fall in love and die because of that love. The story is rather

extraordinary in that the normal problems faced by young lovers are

here so very large. It is not simply that the families of Romeo and

Juliet disapprove of the lover's affection for each other; rather, the

Montagues and the Capulets are on opposite sides in a blood feud and

are trying to kill each other on the streets of Verona. Every time a

member of one of the two families dies in the fight, his relatives

demand the blood of his killer. Because of the feud, if Romeo is

discovered with Juliet by her family, he will be killed. Once Romeo is

banished, the only way that Juliet can avoid being married to someone

else is to take a potion that apparently kills her, so that she is burried

with the bodies of her slain relatives. In this violent, death-filled

world, the movement of the story from love at first sight to the union

of the lovers in death seems almost inevitable.

What is so striking about this play is that despite its extraordinary setting

(one perhaps reflecting Elizabethan attitudes about hot-blooded Italians), it

has become the quintessential story of young love. Because most young

lovers feel that they have to overcome giant obstacles in order to be together,

because they feel that they would rather die than be kept apart, and especially

because the language Shakespeare gives his young lovers is so exquisite,

allowing them to say to each other just what we would all say to a lover if we

only knew how, it is easy to respond to this play as if it were about all young

lovers rather than about a particular couple in a very unusual world. (When

the play was rewritten in the eighteen century as The History and Fall of

Caius Marius, the violent setting became that of a particularly discordant

period in classical Rome; when Leonard Berstein rewrote the play as West

Side Story, he chose the violent world of New York street gangs).

This love story, though familiar even to those who have never read or

seen a Shakespearean play, reveals fresh depths and nuances when

experienced directly because of the beauty and precision of

Shakespeare’s language and his brilliant perception of character.

The brawl that opens the play reveals at once the violence that racks

Verona. The enmity between the city’s two leading families, the Capulets

and the Montagues, is laid to rest only in the final scene, when Capulet

and Montague reach reconciliation through the tragic death of their

children.

Romeo, a Montague, moping for the love of Rosaline at the beginning of

the play, falls in love with Juliet at a ball give by Capulet, her father. That

Juliet feels the same about him he discovers by eaves dropping as she

talks to herself on the balcony overlooking the Capulets’ garden. This

balcony scene offers some of the most memorable love poetry ever

written, with an abundance of phrases and images that have become a

permanent part of our cultural heritage.

The chain of unhappy events that follow constitutes a tragedy of errors, as

the antagonism between the two families leads to the death of Romeo’s

friend Mercutio and Juliet’s cousin Tybalt, slain by Romeo himself.

Yet the mood of the play is not heavy. Shakespeare includes much comic

by play between Romeo and his friends and between Juliet and her Nurse,

thus enriching the texture of the play as its characters appear in diverse

lights.

It is incredible that Romeo and Juliet are actually on stage together for

only about twelve minutes, for these two adolescents have become the

Western world’s most memorable lovers.

Battenhouse, Roy W. Shakespearean Tragedy: Its Art and Its Christian

Premises. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969. Argues that

in Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare shows a mistrust of carnal love, which

leads the protagonists to suicide and damnation; the suicides in the tomb

at the end of the play are an inversion of the Easter story.

Evans, Robert. The Osier Cage; Rhetorical Devices in “Romeo and

Juliet.” Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1966. Explores the

style of Romeo and Juliet, particularly Shakespeare’s use of opposites

such as love and violence, darkness and light, and appearance and reality.

In” Characters fromShakespeare′s Plays”(1817) William Hazlitt affirmed

that Romeo is Hamlet in love.There is the same rich exuberance of

passion and sentiment in the one,that there is of thought and sentiment in

the other.Both are absent and self-involved,both live out of themselves in

a world of imagination.

In Romeo and Juliet, love serves as the tragedy. According to critic

Denton J. Snider, "love, the emotion of the Family, in its excess destroys the

Family; though it be the origin and bond of the domestic institution, it now

assails and annihilates that institution." The love of Romeo and Juliet for one

another, not only destroys their families, but ultimately destroys them as

well. Their love and devotion for one another causes them to rebel against

the institution of family. All in all, "love, which is the emotional ground of

the Family, is here destroying the Family itself" (Snider).

Among the Capulet and Montague families, why does the persistent

rebellion among the children exist? Supposedly, the feud is fueled solely by

their parent’s strife; however, it is clear that the children are brought into the

picture and are victims of Verona’s violent social climate. Shakespeare critic,

Coppelia Kahn places emphasis on the parent’s lack of direction in their

children.

Instead of providing social channels and moral guidance by which the

energies of the youth can be rendered beneficial to themselves and society, the

Montagues and the Capulets make weak gestures toward civil peace while

participating emotionally in the feud as much as their children do. While they

fail to exercise authority over the younger generation in the streets, they wield

selfishly and stubbornly in the home.

Another critic ,P.Casso said that” The Play Is A Collage”.He affirmed that

he rejected that the play, Romeo and Juliet, is seen as a whole.Every scene is

unique and can be seen as a single story. For him, not the play itself is important

but the way Shakespeare creates unique and autonomous scenes.

Nothing is consistent. At the end of the play, everything differs from what you

seemed to know at the beginning. Therefore, he claimed that if you wanted to

work with the play or analyse it in detail, you have to see the scenes

independently.

TEXT ANALYSIS

Literary critics have hailed Romeo and Juliet as a lyrical tragedy; rich in

imagination and poetry and universal in appeal. Every utterance of the young

lovers is bubbling with emotion; as it excites, it exalts as well. Romeo and Juliet

become more than characters on stage; they are exemplary lovers who sacrifice

unto death for their love and for one another. What appeals to the reader is not

only the tragedy of young love, but also the exquisite composition, metrical

melody, dulcet music, and lovely imagery of the play. It is the poetry of the

play, more than the plot, which transports the reader into the rich world of

romance. Sometimes blank verses blossom into rhymed lines, giving additional

beauty to the words. Sometimes, Romeo and Juliet talk in sonnets to declare

their love.

Imagery is another aspect, which lifts the play to a higher level of intellectual

pleasure. When Juliet appears on the balcony, Romeo, full of love and passion

for her bursts into poetic exuberance:

But soft! What light through window breaks? It is the last and Juliet is the Sun

who is already sick and pale with grief The brightness of her cheek would

shame those stars As day light doth a lamp.

O, that I were a glove upon her hand That I might touch that cheek!

In the tomb, Romeo again pours forth the passions of his heart in exquisite

poetry:

Thou detestable maw, thou womb of Death, Gorged with the dearest morsel of

the earth Thou , I enforce thy roller joins to open, And in despite, I’ll cram thee

with more food !”

Shakespeare has obviously chosen the language for the play very carefully. The

depth and beauty of the language and images are a true reflection of the depth

and beauty of the protagonists themselves. Together they

makeRomeo and Juliet an unforgettable and lyrical masterpiece, an undying

love song.

 

The Central themes of the play are developed by contrast and center on love.

In the first and second scenes, three different kinds of love are depicted. Sensual

love is first presented in the ribald jokes of Samson and Gregory, in the bawdy

comments of the Nurse, and in Mercutio’s sexual jokes about Rosaline at the

expense of Romeo. Next, petty love is presented in the “love sick” Romeo.

Romeo is in love with the idea of love and fancies that Rosaline is the girl of his

dreams. He praises her beauty, moans about her not returning his love, and

sheds affected tears for his plight. Mercutio and the Friar both are aware of the

shallowness of Romeo’s ‘love’ for Rosaline. The third type of love presented in

the play is “Conventional Love”, which is developed in the social situation of

arranged marriage. Paris offers his rank in exchange for Juliet’s beauty. He

respectfully asks Lord Capulet for the hand of his daughter before he has ever

met her personally. There is no emotion here, only convenience and proper

social matching.

Against the presentation of these three types of love, Romeo’s genuine and

passionate love of Juliet stands out prominently. From the moment Romeo

meets Juliet at the Capulet’s ball, his affected love for Rosaline vanishes. He

puts aside his sentimentality and artificiality. True love takes complete

possession of his mind and soul and becomes the driving force in his life. After

meeting Juliet, even Romeo’s language undergoes a great change; it becomes

more simple, pure, and lucid, truly the language of the heart. He is no longer a

dreamy, but a practical young man who lays plans for marriage to the woman he

loves.

True love knows no limits. It drives Romeo and Juliet to ignore the barriers of

family feud and to defy parental authority. It finds a way to consummate a

marriage in spite of Romeo’s exile and the danger involved in his staying in

Verona overnight. It finds a way to prevent Juliet from marrying Paris. It finds a

way, through death, to unite the lovers eternally. Romeo and Juliet have become

immortal by the power of their ‘passionate’ love. Truly, this young couple

shows how love can conquer all things.

Another key theme of the play is the tragic consequences of civil disorder. The

opening scene clearly establishes the disorder in Verona by presenting the

quarrel of the servants, who belong to the opposing houses of the Montagues

and the Capulets. Prince Escalus, as a guardian of peace, threatens death for

anyone who continues the strife, but his words, for the most part, fall on dear

ears. In Act III, Scene 1, a quarrel again erupts between Mercutio and Tybalt,

and later between Tybalt and Romeo; the fighting results in the deaths of

Mercutio and Tybalt. In the final Scene, there is the fight between Romeo and

Pairs, resulting in the death of Paris. Civil disorder has needlessly claimed

several lives.

Romeo and Juliet also become sacrifices to the enmity between the two houses.

Although deeply in love, they cannot openly admit their feelings since Juliet is a

Capulet and Romeo is a Montague. They are forced to marry in secret and tell

no one outside of Friar Lawrence. As a result, when Lord Capulet forces Juliet

into a marriage with Paris, she chooses to take the potion that will put her in a

trance rather than betray Romeo. Romeo misunderstands her death-like state, so

he kills himself. Juliet, in turn, kills herself when she realizes Romeo is dead.

Both of these deaths were indirectly caused by the civil disorder between the

Montagues and Capulets. If Romeo and Juliet had been able to openly profess

their love, they would not have become tragic heroes. 

depth and beauty of the language and images are a true reflection of the depth

and beauty of the protagonists themselves. Together they

makeRomeo and Juliet an unforgettable and lyrical masterpiece, an undying

love song.

RICHARD THE THIRD

Shakespeare’s first great villain and his lengthiest early role, the part of Richard

III has long been a gift for actors. All the greats have played him, and each has

made the irresistibly evil king their own. To many, it’s Richard’s breathtaking

theatricality that makes him what he is: the smiling murderer, the seductive

humpback, the man who engages with the audience outside the action yet

nevertheless controls it until almost the last moment.

Richard III is unusual among Shakespeare’s oeuvre in having been almost

continually on the stage – in one form or another – ever since it was written.

Richard is the first of Shakespeare’s great villains, all of them able to bend the

characters around them to their will by fitting themselves to their purposes.

Shakespeare stresses Richard’s theatricality so much that even as we gasp at his

deeds, we are astonished by his control over events. The strength of that power

is revealed by the fact that other people think him honesty incarnate. But

Richard is evil - so evil, in fact, that he derives immense satisfaction from

committing vile deeds.

The action takes place in England. Although the historical events

depicted in the play took place over approximately fourteen years, Shakespeare

compresses them into about a month. The play ends in 1485 after the Battle of

Bosworth Field.

After a long civil war between the royal family of York and the royal

family of Lancaster, England enjoys a period of peace under King Edward IV

and the victorious Yorks. But Edward’s younger brother, Richard, resents

Edward’s power and the happiness of those around him. Malicious, power-

hungry, and bitter about his physical deformity, Richard begins to aspire

secretly to the throne and decides to kill anyone he has to in order to become

king.

Using his intelligence and his skills of deception and political

manipulation, Richard begins his campaign for the throne. First, he convinces

King Edward that their brother, the Duke of Clarence, craves the crown.

Edward then claps Clarence in chains and imprisons him in the Tower of

London. Edward, meanwhile, becomes seriously ill. Richard wants Edward to

die, of course, but not until Clarence is dead. After King Edward dies, Richard

becomes lord protector of England—the figure in charge until the elder of

Edward’s two sons grows up. He manipulates a noblewoman, Lady Anne, that

she agrees to be his bride even though she knows that he murdered her first

husband.

With Queen Elizabeth and the princes now unprotected, Richard has his

political allies, particularly Lord Buckingham, campaign to have Richard

crowned king. After a clever planting of insinuations regarding the illegitimacy

of Edward IV and his children, Richard ascends to the throne as Richard III.

Richard then imprisons the young princes and, in his bloodiest move yet, sends

hired murderers to kill both children. By this time, Richard has alienated even

his own mother, who curses him as a bloody tyrant. Recognizing the need to

bolster his claim to the crown, Richard sends a murderer to dispose of the

princes. Buckingham, until now Richard's staunchest ally, angered at the

murders of the two young boys and at Richard’s false dealings with him, flees.

When rumors begin to circulate about a challenger to the throne who is

gathering forces in France, noblemen defect in droves to join him. The

challenger is the earl of Richmond, a descendant of a secondary arm of the

Lancaster family asserting his own right to the throne and England is ready to

welcome him.

Richard, in the meantime, tries to consolidate his power. He has his wife,

Queen Anne, murdered, so that he can marry young Elizabeth, the daughter of

the former Queen Elizabeth and the dead King Edward. Though young is

Richard’s niece, the alliance would secure his claim to the throne. Queen

Elizabeth manages to forestall Richard and secretly arranges an alliance with

Richmond. In one final ruthless act, Richard captures his former ally

Buckingham on his way to join with Tudor’s armies and has him beheaded.

Former allies have all turned against Richard to join forces with

Richmond who has landed in England and is marching inland to claim the

crown. Nevertheless, Richard has begun to lose control of events. Richmond

finally invades England.

The night before the battle that will decide everything, Richard has a

terrible dream in which the ghosts of all the people he has murdered appear and

curse him, telling him that he will die the next day. In the battle on the

following morning, Richmond slays Richard exclaiming,“The bloody dog is

dead” and he is crowned King Henry VII. Accepting the crown as Henry VII

and promising a new era of peace for England, the new king is betrothed to

young Elizabeth in order to unite the warring houses of Lancaster and York.

MAIN CHARACTERS

King Richard  -  Also called the duke of Gloucester, and eventually

crowned King Richard III. Richard is both the central character and the villain

of the play. He is evil, corrupt, sadistic, and manipulative, and he will stop at

nothing to become king. His intelligence, political brilliance, and dazzling use

of language keep the audience fascinated - and his subjects and rivals under

his thumb.

King Edward IV -  The older brother of Richard and Clarence, and the

king of England at the start of the play. He is unaware that Richard attempts to

thwart him at every turn.

George, the Duke Clarence -  The gentle, trusting brother born between

Edward and Richard has Clarence murdered in order to get him out of the way.

Duchess of York -  Widowed mother of Richard, Clarence, and King

Edward IV. She is angry with Richard, and eventually curses him for his

heinous actions.

Queen Elizabeth -  The wife of King Edward IV and the mother of the

two young princes (the heirs to the throne) and their older sister, young

Elizabeth. After Edward’s death, Queen Elizabeth (also called Lady Gray) is at

Richard’s mercy. Richard rightly views her as an enemy because she is

intelligent and fairly strong-willed.

Young Elizabeth -  The former Queen Elizabeth’s daughter. She becomes

a pawn in political power-brokering, and is promised in marriage at the end of

the play to Richmond, the Lancastrian rebel leader, in order to unite the warring

houses of York and Lancaster.

The princes -  The two young sons of King Edward IV and his wife,

Elizabeth, their names are actually Prince Edward and the young duke of York,

but they are often referred to collectively. Agents of Richard murder these boys

—Richard’s nephews—in the Tower of London.

Queen Margaret -  Widow of the dead King Henry VI, and mother of the

slain Prince Edward. She is embittered and hates both Richard and the people he

is trying to get rid of, all of whom were complicit in the destruction of the

Lancasters.

Lady Anne -  The young widow of Prince Edward, who was the son of

the former king, Henry VI. Lady Anne hates Richard for the death of her

husband, but Richard persuades Anne to marry him.

The Duke of Buckingham -  Richard’s right-hand man, he is almost as

imoral and ambitious as Richard himself. He turns against Richard after the

latter announces plans to murder Prince Edward and Prince Richard, just

children.

Richmond -  A member of a branch of the Lancaster royal family.

Richmond gathers a force of rebels to challenge Richard for the throne. He is

meant to represent goodness, justice, and fairness—all the things Richard does

not. Richmond is portrayed in such a glowing light in part because he founded

the Tudor dynasty, which still ruled England in Shakespeare’s day.

Maquis of Dorset, Earl Rivers, and Lord Gray -  The kinsmen and allies

of Elizabeth. Rivers is Elizabeth’s brother, while Gray and Dorset are her sons

from her first marriage.

Sir Richard Ratcliffe, Sir William Catesby -  Two of Richard’s flunkies

among the nobility.

Sir James Tyrrell -  A murderer whom Richard hires to kill his young

cousins, the princes in the Tower of London.

Lord William Hastings -  A lord who maintains his integrity, remaining

loyal to the family of King Edward IV. Hastings winds up dead for making the

mistake of trusting Richard.

Lord Stanley -  The stepfather of Richmond. Lord Stanley, earl of Derby,

secretly helps Richmond, although he cannot escape Richard’s watchful gaze.

Lord Mayor of London -  A gullible and suggestible fellow whom

Richard and Buckingham use as a pawn in their ploy to make Richard king.

Sir Thomas Vaughan -  A friend of Elizabeth, Dorset, Rivers, and Gray

who is executed by Richard along with Rivers and Grey.

Dighton, Forrest - Murderers.

Ghosts of Richard’s victims- Spirits of Richard III’s murder victims. who

include, in addition to the characters killed in this play, King Henry VI and his

son Edward, prince of Wales. All appear to both Richard and Richmond. They

rouse uncharacteristic terror in Richard and give refreshing encouragement to

Richmond.

TEXT ANALYSIS

As a student at Stratford Grammar School, young William Shakespeare

learned how to read and write through the art of rhetoric. Shakespeare wrote

almost entirely within the strict rules of rhetoric, communicating a clear story of

the Wars of the Roses, but without creating any truly original or well-rounded

character development. When he wrote Richard III, however, Shakespeare

began surpassing the rules of rhetoric by filling his writing with imagery that

conveyed the individual experiences of each character.

Written early in Shakespeare’s career (around 1592-3), Richard III is

written almost entirely in regular verse, without the prose and broken verse seen

in his later plays. Unlike the earlier Henry VI Parts 1, 2 and 3, the characters in

Richard III often speak directly to the audience and use language that conveys

their individual experiences, showing Shakespeare’s growth as a writer. At the

beginning of the play, Richard communicates through traditional rhetoric.

Shakespeare uses the repetition of the same words at the beginning of each line

to logically set up for the audience Richard’s bitter description of the world that

he despises.

Iambic pentameter is a type of verse that tends to be spoken by the

nobility in Shakespeare's plays. It is a kind of rhythmic pattern that consist

of five iambs per line. Not every line in the play is verse. The lower-class

characters, like the two murderers and the citizens, mostly speak in prose, just

like we talk every day. Prose is less formal than verse, so it's befitting of their

"low" social status. For example, when the two murderers show up at the Tower

of London to kill Clarence, they speak a lot of plain old prose.

Shakespeare also uses clear antitheses, or opposites, to show the

difference between the time of war and the time of peace (i.e. “dreadful

marches” and “delightful measures”). A few verse lines later, however, Richard

focuses on himself, and his language shifts, pushing beyond the structure and

formality of traditional rhetoric, communicating a clear self-hatred through the

negative physical images of himself.

This also sets up the animal imagery that will continue through the play.

Richard gives us the image of dogs barking at his deformed body as he limps

by; throughout the play, language referring to Richard is rich with images of

grotesque beasts. In act 1, scene 2, Lady Anne refers to Richard as a

“hedgehog,” and in act 1 scene 3 Queen Margaret calls him a “poisonous

bunchback’d toad” and goes on to call him an “elvish-mark’d, abortive, rooting

hog.” In fact, several characters refer to Richard as “the boar” because his coat

of arms was a white boar with golden tusks. The continual reference to beasts is

intended to illuminate Richard’s true nature.

Richard’s foul deeds eventually unleash nightmares that return to haunt

him, cursing him with self-doubt and fear. In a nightmare the evening before his

final battle, ghosts of those Richard has killed come back to haunt him.

Immediately following the dream, Richard awakes and expresses his newfound

self-doubt in the most broken and unconventional language of the play. Still

partially relying on a rhetorical device by repeating the same word at the end of

several lines, Shakespeare drives Richard toward a powerful realization by

repeating “myself”.

The short, broken sentences in this passage convey the twists and turns of

Richard’s mind as he struggles with his own guilt. With his famous last line, “A

horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!” Richard almost echoes the first line of

his dream the night before, “Give me another horse!,” providing audiences

insight that he’s both haunted and changed by his dream. By the end of the

battle, and the play, Richard’s self-doubt and loathing lead to his defeat and

death. In Richard III, Shakespeare plays with the rules of rhetoric to create his

first fully realized characters, utilizing the most compelling imagery thus far in

his career.

BASIC CRITICISM

As Richard III opens, sume of its audience could be forgiven for feeling a

sense of déjà vu. The brilliant, twisted Richard of Gloucester is alone, centre

stage – acting like a malevolent chorus on the action even though it is yet to

begin, and even though it will involve him too. He claims to be possessed solely

by an obsessive lust for power. Critics such as Jan Kott, who famously

proclaimed that Richard “has no face”, find fault with this character-based

brand of interpretation.

Not surprisingly, critics have seized on these lines. Led by Freud, who

famously saw in Richard the archetype of a personality bruised by childhood

experience and bent on revenge, psychoanalytical commentators have worried

away at the connection between Richard’s deformity and his lust for power –

“to o’er bear such / As are of better person than myself ”. The French critic

René Girard suggests, on a symbolic level, that “Richard’s deformed body is a

mirror for the self-confessed ugliness of his soul”, making a strikingly similar

point to that proposed several centuries earlier by Francis Bacon, who argued in

his essay “Of Deformity” that “all deformed persons are extreme bold ... It

stirreth in them industry ... to watch and observe the weakness in others that

they may have somewhat to repay”.

Other writers have been disturbed by what this seems to imply, that

Richard’s character is the result of his deformity, and much psychological effort

has gone into diagnosing what drives him. Is it hatred of his mother? Envy of

his brothers? Anything at all? What such critics have been reluctant to notice,

though, is that Richard himself makes the link. In fact, his own account of

himself (“cheated of feature”, “deformed, unfinished”, “scarce half made up”)

produces such a monstrous reflection that it cannot help but be an exaggeration.

Richard is, as he says, “descanting” on his own deformity – playing with it,

spinning it out, drawing us in. Though – in Bacon’s terms – he is “extreme

bold” in his determination to wreak revenge (something that inflicts and impels

Iago too), it is clear that Richard seizes on the monstrous aspects of his

appearance and makes them into a source of malevolent power.

In Thomas More’s text, History of King Richard III, Richard is “close

and secret, a deep dissembler, lowly of countenance, arrogant of heart,

outwardly companionable where he inwardly hated, not letting to kiss whom he

thought to kill” – a diabolical description which does its best to desecrate his

reputation. But where More, Halle and Holinshed produce (and reproduce) an

image of Richard which is nothing but evil Shakespeare realizes the sheer

attraction of his character in all its twisted genius. A man who is that good at

being bad must be fascinating to watch; he unites dramatic energy with political

power.

Richard’s skill at remaking himself transforms political events just as

rapidly. His wooing of Lady Anne over her father-in-law’s coffin is a sublime

example of theatrical daring – and in fact a literalization of the argument put

forward by the real-life Machiavelli in his book “The Prince”, that “fortune

[fortuna] is a woman, and if you want to control her, it is necessary to treat her

roughly”.

FURTHER READING

1. Shakespeare in Context

THE REFORMATION (THE FACTS)

A new confidence in the English language is evident in the strength of

vernacular prose writing during the 16th century. At the same time, the fact that

one of the most important prose works of the century, Sir Thomas More’s

“Utopia” (1516), was written in Latin reminds us that a variety of impulses were

at work at the time:

- SIR THOMAS MORE was Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor, but resigned

in 1532 because he could not agree with the king’s ecclesiastical policy

and marriage to Anne Boleyn; he was executed in 1525.

- HENRY VIII was the second Tudor monarch. His father, Henry VII, had

become the king in 1485, when he overthrew Richard III. Henry VIII

came to the throne in 1509.

- In 1517, MARTIN LUTHER’s protest against the principle of papal

indulgences began THE REFORMATION; this was essentially a

protest of the individual conscience against the authority of the Catholic

Church.

- In 1534, Henry VIII was declared SUPREME HEAD ON THE

EARTH OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH:

On the surface, it was because he wanted to obtain a divorce;

At a deeper level, it was a matter of England declaring its

independence and separate identity.

ELIZABETH I In 1547, Henry VIII died. He was succeeded by Edward

VI (aged nine), Lady Jane Grey (for nine days), and, in 1558, by Elizabeth I.

- Her first task was the RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT of 1559, which

imposed the Protestant religion by law, though in such a way that most

people could be accommodated within its terms. The Settlement

established England as a prime mover in the Reformation cause.

- The growing strength of England was made apparent in the defeat of the

Spanish Armada in 1588.

- When Elizabeth died in 1603 it brought to an end over a hundred years of

Tudor rule, a period which can be characterized as displaying an

increasing sense of national confidence and independence.

THOMAS MORE AND HUMANISM In the first 45 or so years of

Tudor government, England was still a Catholic country, and, as such, very

much aware of its European identity. This is the context in which we have to

consider Thomas More, a new kind of figure that appears in this period. In the

15th century, educated Englishmen began to catch a sense of the cultural and

intellectual activity that was flourishing in the Italian city states. The energy of

trade and the consequent affluence produced a new interest in recovering and

studying texts from classical antiquity, and a new enthusiasm for learning,

perhaps best summed up in the term HUMANISM. The poetry of Wyatt and

the Earl of Surrey is one manifestation of such humanist activity and of how the

Italian Renaissance affected England, but in More’s “Utopia” we gain an

impression of something rather more weighty.

MORE’S “UTOPIA” The book looks at European society, offering solutions

for some of its ills; it does this primarily by citing, and proceeding to describe,

UTOPIA, a perfect island state. It is a work that reflects a new kind of concern

with questions of government and political and social organization. If we were

to make a comparison with earlier texts, we might argue that, while Old English

writings focus on loyalty as the key value in a corrupt and harsh world, with

religion as the only consolation, in a work such as More’s “Utopia” there is a far

more positive sense of the human intellect and of human capability.

LANGUAGE MATTERS Yet at the same time, even with More’s

humanist scholarship and a new interest in philosophy, history, literature and

art, 16th century England was geographically and culturally on the fringe of the

continental Europe. For men such as More, the question whether to write in

Latin or English was always a difficult one. More’s CHOICE OF LATIN

signals an awareness of being part of an intellectual community that extends

beyond England as well as a kind of political conservatism. But the choice of

Latin also, possibly, conveys a sense of English as still relatively unstable and

unproven as a language.

ROGER ASCHAM, the tutor of Elizabeth before she became queen, felt he

should write in English, even though he found it easier to write in Latin or

Greek. His book, “Toxophilus” (1545), which is about archery, includes a

significant section on the importance of using English. Ascham’s commitment

to English was deeply intertwined with his sense of his English Protestant

identity. In this connection, it would be hard to exaggerate the importance of the

English Reformation in promoting English as the inevitable choice for the

writer of prose; at a fundamental level, it is only possible to express one’s

separate and independent identity in one’s own language.

THE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE The changes that came about in the

16th century are illustrated if we consider the issue of the translation of the

Bible. Before the Reformation, the Bible had been translated, but WILLIAM

TYNDALE, whose New Testament translation appeared in 1526, was burned

as a heretic in Belgium and his translation was suppressed in England. In 1536,

however, Henry VIII gave royal licence for an English Bible, which was,

essentially, the Tyndale translation. In 1560, the so-called Geneva Bible was

presented to Elizabeth, and became the Bible in standard use for merely a

century; it is less lofty and less Latinate than King James Bible of 1611. The

fact that the Bible was now available in English should be seen in conjunction

with the fact that new books were printed, rather than existing in manuscript,

and that by as early as 1530, it has been suggested by some historians, over 50%

of the population could read.

ELIZABETHAN ADVENTURERS Many would argue that it is

economic activity as much as political or religious factors that prompts social

and cultural change. In this respect it is important to pay attention to the

activities of Elizabethan adventurers and the expansion of maritime activity.

- RICHARD HAKLUYT’s “The Principal navigations, Traffiques,

and Discoveries of the English nation” was published in 1589,

reappearing about ten years later in a greatly enlarged edition. It is a

compilation of ships’ logs, salemen’s reports and economic intelligence;

the author takes material as unshaped as a ship’s log, and moulds it into a

narrative of self-identity. In no small measure, this involves telling a

seafaring nation that it is, indeed, a sea-faring nation destined to rule the

world. Again and again, Hakluyt’s mariners venture forth into a world

that is beset by storms and danger, but they always seem to receive their

reward. It is a form of divine providence, and perhaps particularly

directed at the English who are suitable recipients of such bounty.

- SIR WALTER RALEGH’s “The History of the World” (1614)

Soldier, sailor, courtier, politician, poet and historian, Ralegh seems to

embody the idea of Castiglione’s “The Courtier” (1528), combining

intellectual and heroic attributes. The book, unfinished as it is, starts with

the Creation and gets as far as the second century BC. It is an ambitious

attempt to comprehend the past from the perspective of an Englishman,

and through the medium of English. It is entirely consistent with the

expansionist, colonial mission of England in which figures such as

Ralegh sought to wrest control of Spanish colonies on behalf of

Elizabeth.

But the years between 1603 and 1616, when Ralegh was imprisoned in the

Tower of London for treason, together with his execution in 1618, suggest the

frailty of the concept of control in England during the Elizabethan and Jacobean

periods. Dissent, insurrection and rebellion were common during the Tudor

period, and were suppressed ruthlessly. As with the sonnet, the initial

impression might be of an orderliness under firm authority, but the order that is

established is fragile, and forces beyond the tight control of the royal court

always threaten to disturb such harmony as has been established.

SIR PHILIP SIDNEY, “THE ARCADIA”

In the 16th century, the dominant voice is that of the courtly aristocrat, as is the

case of Sir Philip Sidney’s prose romance “The Arcadia. It is set in an ancient

pastoral world where King Basilius has taken refuge to avoid the prophecy of an

oracle, and tells of the adventures of two princes, Musidorus and Pyrocles, who

fall in love with the king’s daughters. The plot is full of intrigues, while the text

is punctuated by verse eclogues and songs. As in Shakespeare’s late plays, The

Tempest and The Winter’s Tale, the effect is to heighten by contrast the themes

of love and nature, but, as in all such works, the pastoral ideal is threatened

from both within and without, its harmony disturbed by murder and attempted

rape. What may strike modern readers most about The Arcadia is its sheer

elaborateness intended to convey courtly sophistication, but also a certain

eliteness. In this it is at an opposite remove from a work such as Thomas

Nashe’s The Unfortunate Traveller (1594).

THOMAS NASHE, “THE UNFORTUNATE TRAVELLER” (1594)

It is an early example of the novel in England which focuses on the adventures

of an English page on the Continent. Nashe creates a grim picture of a world

that is almost anarchically untidy, a world in which the failings and excesses of

the ruling class are too apparent. Nashe was always a vigorous opponent of the

growing power of the Puritans and their wish to control both the theatre and

writing. He represents a dissident stream of literature, including such popular

forms as rogue literature and “coney-catching” pamphlets describing con-tricks

played on innocent citizens. Here is a genuine alternative voice to that of the

court, a voice rooted in everyday life with all its hazards, but also a voice that is

akin to popular journalism and popular fiction. In many ways, it is the voice of

the future

RELIGION It is in the area of religion that the vulnerability of the order

established by the Tudor monarchs is most apparent. A new Protestant

dispensation naturally found itself in contention with Catholic orthodoxy, but it

also proved insufficiently radical for many in the country. MARTIN

MARPRELATE was the name assumed by the author of a series of pamphlets

issued in 1558-9; these were extreme Puritan attacks on Bishops, who were

regarded as symbols of the Catholicism still infecting the new Protestant church.

As we enter in the 1590s, more and more different voices begin to be heard,

asserting their presence in an ever growing variety of literary forms.

Significantly, the government ordered counter-attacks on the Puritan pamphlets,

and also introduced censorship. Such actions acknowledged the strength of the

forces that threatened it politically, but also indicate the way in which works of

literature open up and draw attention to the faultiness of change. The Tudor

period is characterized by strong central leadership, and this is echoed in a

court-based literature that, as in the cleverness of so many sonnets, revels in

poise, authority and control. But the very fact of strong government is also a

recognition of the existence of disruptive forces in a changing country.

Elizabeth I died unmarried and without a direct heir in 1603. It seems more than

a coincidence that William Shakespeare’s most celebrated works, his major

tragedies, were written around this time. Hamlet was probably first performed

in 1600 or 1601; then, after the death of Elizabeth, Othello (1604), King Lear

(1605), and Macbeth (1605-6) were staged in rapid succession. The reign of

Elizabeth can be characterized as a successful period in English history, with

commercial and military successes (most notably, the defeat of the Spanish

Armada in 1588) contributing to a growing sense of national confidence. In

addition, Elizabeth’s Religious Settlement of 1559, enforcing the Protestant

religion by law, cemented a sense of the national identity. But the very idea of

imposing a uniform religious identity on people does begin to draw attention to

fundamental problems in the Elizabethan period, problems that were to become

more acute in the latter years of the queen’s reign.

Many people, both Catholics and Puritans, were less than happy with

Elizabeth’s religious settlement. For Puritans, the official version of

Protestantism, with its bishops and retention of some aspects of Catholic ritual,

was incompatible with their vision of a much more austere reformation of the

church and its services. Such differences of opinion were echoed in politics.

Elizabeth, understandably, wished to maintain a tight grip on power, and was

notoriously reluctant to summon Parliament. But Parliament during Elizabeth’s

reign began to display its independence in an unprecedented manner. What we

see in both religion and politics is the presence, and growing assertiveness, of a

variety of voices all demanding their say in how the country conducted itself. It

can, of course, be argued that we would encounter a variety of voices in any

society at any time, but it is particularly in the nature of an expansionist trading

nation, the kind of nation England was developing into in the late 16 th century,

that it will be characterized by independent voices. The dynamic energy

displayed by the merchant class is no less present in religious, political, and

social life generally, with a similar energy and potential for disruption. The

overlapping of business and politics is evident, for example, in 1601 in the way

Elizabeth was forced to retreat on the question of the crown’s monopoly over

granting manufacturing and trading licences.

As long as Elizabeth remained alive, however, she seemed able to hold

together conflicting interests in the nation, managing to control or eliminate its

dissident members. We can point, for example, to the failure of an attempted

rebellion by the Earl of Essex in 1601, an abortive coup that led to his execution

(his son, it is relevant to note, was a leader of the Parliamentary army during the

Civil War). The means by which the queen held the country together is an

intriguing and complex subject, but one important subject was the way in which

Elizabeth projected an image of herself as the embodiment of the nation.2 But

the problem with an image is that it is nearly always at odds with, or a covering

over of, reality. In the 1590s in particular, more and more discontented voices

were heard in the country, fuelled by various factors: bad harvests, the growing

enclosure of commons, poverty and oppression. Even within the court there was

impatience with an elderly monarch, who procrastinated rather than accepting

change. But the most serious threat was the sense that the unity of the nation

might fall apart with the death of the queen, particularly as there was no direct

2 As we saw in the discussion of Edmund Spenser, literature, especially “The Faerie Queene,” contributed to this image.

heir. It had been agreed that James VI of Scotland would succeed to the English

throne, but when he did succeed, as James I, many of his new subjects were

intensely suspicious of his intentions. After all, his mother, Mary Queen of

Scots, had been a Catholic – might he not seek to impose Catholicism upon the

country?

In this context – the closing years of the reign of the reign of Elizabeth

and the opening years of the reign of James I, who increasingly alienated the

Puritans with his High Church views, and who also found himself at odds with

Parliament – that Shakespeare writes. His plays, in both a light-hearted and a

serious way, repeatedly feature rebellious characters who challenge established

authority. A substantial number of the plays feature monarchs who, in unsettled

times, have established a degree of stability, but just as many feature monarchs

and other authority or father figures who fail miserably in asserting control.

Drama at any time is the ideal medium for a debate about leadership, as a play’s

plot is built upon the premise of conflict and confrontation, but this was

especially the case in Elizabethan England. The new playhouses, based in

London, were close to the very heart of the political life of the country, but also

in touch with the new and dynamic forces in society and its expanding business

and intellectual environment. Such rapid shifts in a society – London’s

population soared during Shakespeare’s lifetime and its growth outstripped

every other city in Europe – destabilise and question accepted structures, raising

doubts about order and government. At the same time, it is important to

recognise that a play is a performance, an illusion created on the stage, and that

a play can self-consciously draw attention to the way in which it is an illusion;

in particular, it can draw attention to the manner in which the illusion of order,

and especially the authority of monarchical rule, is created. The various

elements touched on here, including worries about what might happen

following the death of the queen, all come together in Shakespeare’s great

tragedies at the start of the seventeenth century. The point at which we have to

start, however, is when Shakespeare embarks upon his career as a dramatist, in

the ferment of new ideas, political activity and social unrest of the 1590s.

2. Shakespeare’s Comedies

THE FIRST DECADE Shakespeare’s career in the theatre begins with three

plays about Henry VI, written between 1590 and 1592 (the dates for all of

Shakespeare’s plays are conjectural). It is more illuminating, however, if we

look at his first decade as a whole, dividing the plays into three groups:

a. There is a variety of early plays, plays which might be regarded as

apprentice works in which Shakespeare is learning his craft: The Two

Gentlemen of Verona, Titus Andronicus, The Comedy of Errors, Love’s

Labours Lost, and Romeo and Juliet.

b. There is a group of English History plays written between 1592 and

1599: Richard III, Richard II, King John, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and

Henry V. Julius Caesar, first staged in 1599, is one of Shakespeare’s

Roman plays, but is considered in this section as it is in many ways the

logical culmination of the English History plays, taking up their central

concerns, though it considers them in a different context.

c. During this decade, specifically between 1594 and 1600 (or possibly as

late as 1602) Shakespeare also wrote his great comedies which, because

of shared themes, also demand to be seen as a group: A Midsummer

Night’s Dream, The Merchant of Venice, The Merry Wives of Windsor,

Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It and Twelfth Night.

SOURCES AND MODELS Before turning to the plays themselves,

however, we need to consider how such works, which seem to have very little in

common with the native English mystery or miracle plays came into existence.

The Renaissance revival of classical learning and of classical texts prompted an

interest in Roman drama which, in turn, provided a model that a number of

English writers began to imitate: a five-act structure, dramatic rules to be

observed, and established types of plot and character. The influence of these

classical models can be seen in Shakespeare’s first comedy, The Comedy of

Errors, which both formally and in terms of content is indebted to the works of

the Roman comic poet and dramatist PLAUTUS (c.254-184 BC). It was,

however, the Roman playwright SENECA (c.4 BC – AD 65) that English

writers turned to for a model of tragedy. By 1574, commercial acting companies

were established in London, and Senecan tragedy as it had developed in

Renaissance Italy provided a form in which the stage could be littered with dead

and dismembered bodies. We can instance THOMAS KYD’s The Spanish

Tragedy (c.1587), in which the revenge hero, whose son has been murdered,

bites out his tongue on stage after killing the murderers, and Shakespeare’s first

tragedy, Titus Andronicus (1593-94), which features rape, mutilation, and

cannibalism. By the 1590s the London stage was thriving, and Shakespeare’s

company was enjoying considerable popularity, becoming a favourite of the

queen – The Merry Wives of Windsor was written at royal insistence. But, as a

commercial playwright, Shakespeare also occupied a position outside the

culture of the court. This leads directly to one of the central questions about

Shakespeare’s plays: DID HE WRITE IN DEFENCE OF THE

ESTABLISHED ORDER, OR AS SCEPTICAL CRITIC OF ITS

POLITICAL VALUES?

Much Ado About Nothing It is a question that we can start too consider as

we look at Much Ado About Nothing.3 The play might seem to be just a piece

3 The play begins with the return from war of Don Pedro and his retinue, who are to be entertained at Leonato’s house. Claudio falls in love with Hero, Leonato’s daughter, and asks Don Pedro to woo her for him. Don John, the villain of the play, manages to trick Claudio into believing that Hero is unfaithful. In the meantime, the other characters contrive to make Beatrice and Benedick, who seem to despise each other, fall in love. Claudio, deceived by Don John, rejects Hero at their wedding ceremony. By the end, of course, the problems are solved, and Claudio and Hero marry, as do Beatrice and Benedick.

of frivolous entertainment: love creates disorder in society, but by the end, as

always happens in a comedy, social order is restored. If we look a little deeper,

however, we can see a gap between public performance and how characters feel

and think. At the wedding, for example, Claudio plays the role required of him

until the point where he reveals his disdain for Hero. There is an issue here

about the difference between the parts people play in public and a seething

discord underneath. Indeed, just behind the good humour of the court, but

curiously part of it, is the malevolent villainy of Don John.

The PATTERN seen here is always evident in Shakespeare’s comedies:

there is always a gap between the attractive idea of social order, represented in

the public face that characters present to the world, and the more complex

feelings and desires that motivate people. This is perhaps easier to recognise in

a DARK COMEDY such as The Merchant of Venice.4 Life in Venice is, on

the surface, polished and urbane, but below the surface are complicated

questions about the relationship between money, the law, race, justice and

mercy. The play ends with order restored, but has exposed difficult areas of

conflict.

In Much Ado About Nothing, the society represented is one characterised

by male rule. This is the conventional order of life. But there is something

distasteful about Claudio’s attitude towards women, illustrated in the way that

he relies upon Don Pedro to woo Hero for him. The woman seems little more

than a chattel. Indeed, when she is told that Hero is dead, Claudio is quite

prepared to marry her cousin, even though he has never seen her (she turns out

to be Hero in disguise). Much Ado About Nothing is, then, a play that celebrates

the restoration of the conventional order at its conclusion, but which along the

way has made some telling points about the assumptions inherent in the

4 Antonio borrows from Shylock, a Jewish money-lender, who accepts as a bond, if the loan is not repaid in three months, the promise of a pound of Antonio’s flesh. It is successfully argued in court that the bond mentions only flesh, not blood, and Shylock is defeated; he is forced to give half his wealth to Antonio, and to become a Christian.

established order. This kind of questioning is evident in all of Shakespeare’s

plays: Over and over again, he examines the foundations upon which social and

political life are constructed, identifying the forces that motivate and shape

society. Central to his plays is the idea that much of social life resembles a

performance on a stage, in which people play parts (including the roles

associated with their different genders), but that this public performance is an

illusion that is easily shattered.

The British Arts & Humanities Research Council created an impressive

database containing all the adaptations and representations of Shakespeare’s

drama on television, film and radio created from 1890 to the contemporary time.

The result was a list of more than 410 films and television variants of the Bard’s

plays, some of which respect the original text and others rebuild it for a new

audience, for a new age. However, the most important aspect of this study is

that it proves one more time that Shakespeare is the author that raised the most

the interest of producers, film directors and simple writers all over the world.

Taking into account the fact that in this chapter, our analysis focuses on

cinematic adaptations mainly of the Shakespearean tragedies we are going to

list some of the most eloquent examples found by the Research Council:

“Antony and Cleopatra

BBC Television Shakespeare Antony and Cleopatra (TV, UK, 1981)

Released in the USA as part of the "Complete Dramatic Works of

William Shakespeare" series.

Kannaki (India, Malayalam, 2002) is an adaptation of Shakespeare's Antony and

Cleopatra.

Coriolanus

BBC Television Shakespeare Coriolanus (TV, UK, 1984) (videotaped)

Released in the USA as part of the "Complete Dramatic Works of

William Shakespeare" series.

Coriolanus (film) (UK, 2012)

Hamlet

The most significant screen performances are:

Hamlet (Germany, 1920) Svend Gade & Heinz Schall directors

Hamlet (UK, 1948) Laurence Olivier director

Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark (West Germany, 1961) Franz Peter Wirth director

Hamlet (aka Gamlet) (Russia, 1964) Grigori Kozintsev director

Hamlet (aka Richard Burton's Hamlet) (1964), Bill Colleran and John Gielgud

directors

Hamlet at Elsinore (TV, UK, 1964) Philip Saville director

Hamlet (UK, 1969) Tony Richardson director

BBC Television Shakespeare Hamlet (TV, UK, 1980) Rodney Bennett director

(a videotaped production)

Hamlet (USA, 1990) Franco Zeffirelli director

The Animated Shakespeare Hamlet (TV, Russia and UK, 1992) Natalia Orlova

director

Hamlet (UK, 1996) Kenneth Branagh director

Hamlet (USA, 2000) Michael Almereyda director (Modern Retelling)

The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark (2007) (AUS, 2007) Oscar Redding

director

The Bad Sleep Well (aka Warui yatsu hodo yoku nemuru) (Japan, 1960) Akira

Kurosawa director

Strange Brew (Canada, 1983) Dave Thomas & Rick Moranis directors.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (USA, 1990) Tom Stoppard director

Renaissance Man (USA, 1994) Penny Marshall director

The Lion King (USA, 1994) Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff directors.

In The Bleak Midwinter (aka "A Midwinter's Tale") (UK, 1996) Kenneth

Branagh director

The Truman Show (USA, 1998) Peter Weir director

Let the Devil Wear Black (USA, 1999) Stacy Title director

The Banquet, (China, 2006) Feng Xiaogang, director

Sons of Anarchy (television show, USA 2008) Created by Kurt Sutters

Karmayogi (2011 film), (India, 2011) V K Prakash, director

Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar (USA, 1950)

Julius Caesar (USA, 1953) having Joseph L. Mankiewicz as director

Julius Caesar (USA, 1970) with Charlton Heston as Mark Antony, Jason

Robards as Brutus and John Gielgud as Caesar

BBC Television Shakespeare Julius Caesar (TV, UK, 1979) (a production shot

on videotape rather than film) released in the USA as part of the "Complete

Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare" series.

The Animated Shakespeare Julius Caesar (TV, Russia and UK, 1994)

Heil Caesar is an adaptation set in an unnamed modern country

King Lear

King Lear (TV, USA, 1953) (originally presented live, now survives on

kinescope) Peter Brook/Andrew McCullough director and Orson Welles as Lear

King Lear (UK, 1971) with Peter Brook director and Paul Scofield as Lear

King Lear (aka Korol Lir) (Russia, 1971)

New York Shakespeare Festival King Lear (USA, 1974) (videotaped)

King Lear (TV, UK, 1976) (videotaped), directed by Tony Davenall director

BBC Television Shakespeare King Lear (TV, UK, 1982) with Jonathan Miller

as director and released in the USA as part of the "Complete Dramatic Works of

William Shakespeare" series.

King Lear (TV, UK, 1983), directed by Michael Elliot

King Lear (TV, UK, 1997). BBC film of the Royal National Theatre's stage

version. It was televised with an accompanying documentary, including

interviews with the director and cast.

King Lear (UK, 1999) with Brian Blessed as a director

King Lear (Bahamas/USA, 1987) is post-Chernobyl disaster science fiction.

Ran (Japan, 1985) is an adaptation of the Lear story to a Japanese setting,

directed by Akira Kurosawa

A Thousand Acres (USA, 1997) is a modern retelling of the Lear story, from the

perspective of the Goneril character (Ginny).

King of Texas (TV, USA, 2002) is a Western adaptation of King Lear with Uli

Edel as director and Patrick Stewart as John Lear

Macbeth

Macbeth (USA, 1948), Orson Welles director

Macbeth (1954 TV special), (USA, 1954), George Schaefer, director, a live

television production now preserved on kinescope

Macbeth (1960 film), (UK, 1960), George Schaefer director, a filmed-on-

location adaptation with the same two stars and director as the 1954

production. Shown on TV in the U.S. and in theatres in Europe

'Play of the Month' Macbeth (1965 TV, UK), John Gorrie director

Macbeth (USA and UK, 1971), Roman Polanski director

Macbeth (UK, 1978, Royal Shakespeare Company), Philip Casson director

Macbeth (UK, 1981), Arthur Allan Seidelman director

BBC Television Shakespeare Macbeth (TV, UK, 1983)

Macbeth (UK, 1997), Jeremy Freeston and Brian Blessed directors

Macbeth (TV, UK, 1998), Michael Bogdanov director

The Animated Shakespeare Macbeth (TV, Russia and UK, 1992), Nicolai

Serebryakov director

Macbeth (Video, UK, 2001, Royal Shakespeare Company), Greg Doran

director

Macbeth (2006 film) (Australia, 2006), Geoffrey Wright director

Macbeth (2010 film) (UK, 2010), Rupert Goold director

Joe MacBeth (UK, 1955), Ken Hughes director

Throne of Blood (aka Cobweb Castle or Kumonosu-jo) (Japan, 1957), Akira

Kurosawa director

Men of Respect (USA 1991), William Reilly director

Rave Macbeth (Germany, 2001)

Scotland, PA (USA, 2001), Billy Morrissette director

Maqbool (India, 2004), Vishal Bharadwaj director

ShakespeaRe-Told Macbeth (UK, TV, 2005)

Othello

Othello (Silent, Germany, 1922) with Dimitri Buchowetzki director and

Emil Jannings as Othello

Othello (UK, 1946) with David MacKane director

Othello (USA, 1952): Orson Welles director and as Othello

Othello (Russia, 1955):Sergei Yutkevich director and screenplay

Othello (UK, 1965) film of the Royal National Theatre's stage production

with Stuart Burge director and Laurence Olivier as Othello

BBC Television Shakespeare Othello (TV, UK, 1980) (videotaped) Released

in the USA as part of the "Complete Dramatic Works of William

Shakespeare" series, with Anthony Hopkins as Othello

Othello (TV, UK, 1990) videotape of the Royal Shakespeare Company's

stage production.

The Animated Shakespeare Othello (TV, Russia and UK, 1994)

Othello (USA, 1995) Oliver Parker director

A Double Life (USA, 1947) is a film noir adaptation of the Othello story, in

which an actor playing the moor takes on frightening aspects of his

character's personality, directed by George Cukor

All Night Long (UK, 1962) is an adaptation set in the contemporary London

jazz scene.

Catch My Soul (USA, 1974) is adapted from the rock musical based on the

play.

Kaliyattam (India, Malayalam, 1997), directed by Jayaraaj

O (USA, made in 1999, but not released until 2001) is a modern adaptation

of Shakespeare's Othello, directed by Tim Blake Nelson

Othello (TV, UK, 2001) is an adaptation by Andrew Davies of Shakespeare's

Othello, set in the police force in modern London.

Omkara (India, 2006)

Iago (Italy, 2009) is an adaptation directed by Volfango De Biasi. Iago

(Nicolas Vaporidis) is an architecture school student about to graduate who

falls in love with his fellow student Desdemona (Laura Chiatti), the noble

and beautiful daughter of the academic dean, professor Brabanzio (Gabriele

Lavia). Both his career and love hopes are ruined when Otello (Aurelien

Gaya), a young and handsome french nobleman, comes on the scene. With

the help of his friends Emilia (Giulia Steigerwalt) and Roderigo (Lorenzo

Gleijeses), Iago will achieve his revenge by playing everyone against each

other through a complex scheme of lies.

Romeo and Juliet

The most significant screen performances are:

Romeo and Juliet (USA, 1908), J. Stuart Blackton director

Romeo and Juliet (USA, 1936), George Cukor director

Romeo and Juliet (UK, 1954), Renato Castellani director

Romeo and Juliet (Italy, 1968), Franco Zeffirelli director

BBC Television Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet (TV, UK, 1978) (videotaped)

The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (USA, 1982), William Woodman director

The Animated Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet (TV, Russia and UK, 1992)

Efim Gamburg director

Romeo+Juliet (USA, 1996) Baz Luhrmann director

West Side Story (USA, 1961), Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins directors

Romie-0 and Julie-8 (Canada, 1979), Clive A. Smith, director

Tromeo and Juliet (USA, 1996), Lloyd Kaufman director

The Lion King II: Simba's Pride (USA, 1998), Darrell Rooney director

Romeo Must Die (2000), Andrzej Bartkowiak director

Gnomeo and Juliet (2011), Kelly Asbury director

Private Romeo (2011), Alan Brown director

Warm Bodies (2013), Jonathan Levine director

Issaq (2013), Hindi Movie”5

The reason for which we have chosen to list the adaptations of some of the

most popular Shakespearean plays, is to prove that the integral literary work

of the Bard became a source for the screen productions, not only a part of it.

The endlessness of his creations is again indisputable, as it has been adapted

in multicultural environments, suggesting that the message he transmits to

his reader or spectator is accepted in all the parts of the world, from India

and Japan to the American continent. Shakespeare goes beyond any border

and more than this he adapts to any cultural environment, because he

represents the essence of human nature.

5 http://bufvc.ac.uk/shakespeare/

Bibliography

1.The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare;

2. Bloom. Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books,

19984.

3.Bradley, A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: Fawcett Books, n.d.

4. Brînzeu Pia, Chetrinescu Dana, The Shakespearean drama, Timişoara, Editura Hestia,

2000.

5. Dickson Andrew, The rough guide to Shakespeare,the plays,the poems,the life;

6. Duncan Salked - Madness and drama in the age of Shakespeare;

7. Frye, N. On Shakespeare. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986;

8. Green Gayle, Kahn Coppelia, Making a Difference: Feminist Literary Criticism, 2004;

9. Griffith P.M., ”Joseph Warton’s criticism of Shakespeare”- Tulane Studies in English,

1965;

10. Knight G.Wilson, Studii shakespeariene -Editura Univers;

11.Knight G. Wilson, King Lear and the comedy of the grotesque, ND;

12. Knight, G.W. The Wheel of Fire. New York. Meridian Press, 1963

13. Kathleen McCluskie, Coppelia Kahn’s essays in King Lear: A Casebook, ed. Kiernan

Ryan, 1993;

14. Kathleen McCluskie, The Patriarchal Board, 1985;

15. Lamb Charles”On the Tragedies of Shakespeare”, 1810;

16. ReibetanzJohn -The Lear World: a study of King Lear in its dramatic context;

17. Shakespeare William, Regele Lear,Editura Institutul European,2000;

18. Shakespeare William, Regele Lear,EdituraUnivers Enciclopedic,București,1997;

19. Shakespeare William -Regele Lear-Univers Enciclopedic, Bucuresti, 1997;

20. Tolstoy Leo, Crosby Ernest, Shaw Bernard, Tchertkoff Vladimir, Mayo Isabelle Fyvie,

21. Tolstoy on Shakespeare – A critical essay on Shakespeare, 2009;22.Watt R.,

Shakespeare’s History Plays, 1988 – P.Rackin, Stage of History: Ideological conflict,

Alternative plots.

Websites and other electronic resources

http://oxforddictionaries.com

http://www.revistascena.ro/en/interview/thomas-ostermeier

Bertolt Brecht, The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui, source Blockbuster Online –

Cross of Iron

The Guardian, Theatre Review, 19 November 2008, p.42

http://bufvc.ac.uk/shakespeare/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/apr/29/michael-fassbender-play-macbeth

http://www.societefrancaiseshakespeare.org/document.php?id=290

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/full.html