Universidad Nacional de San Martn

The Shakespearean Hero as the Antecessor of the Heroes of the Theatre of the AbsurdCarrera: Licenciatura en Lengua Inglesa Materia: Literatura Inglesa IDocentes: Dra. Gabriela Leighton JTP Lic. Patricia Moglia

Alumna: Virginia VallinaDNI: 33.362.378Fecha: 24 de Febrero de 2012The Shakespearean heroes as the antecessors of the heroes of the Theatre of the Absurd

Introduction

Shakespeare is the canon. He sets the standard and the limits of literature

According to Blooms idea, Shakespeares works have shaped the western culture and particularly its literature, so it may be posed that some of his greatest tragic heroes may have inspired the creation of certain heroes of modern and postmodern theatre. Therefore the aim of this paper is to discuss the influence of Lear and Hamlet on the heroes of some of the plays of the Theatre of the Absurd, particularly Jerry and Peter in The Zoo Story by Edward Albee, Hamm and Clov in Engame by Samuel Beckett and Amade in Amade or how to get rid of it by Eugne Ionesco. This analysis will be done by comparing and contrasting the motivation, character, use of language, nature and actions of the characters in these plays as to show that the tragic heroes on Hamlet and King Lear may have been the antecessors of these other characters created approximately 350 years later. For this purpose, it seems necessary to talk about the characteristics, philosophical and theatrical, of the theatre of the absurd, as well as to analyze the similarities and differences between the theatre of the absurd and Shakespearean theatre, in order to understand better the dramatic structure that rules both sets of characters and the mechanisms that will lead all heroes to their expected doom.

Before delving into the analysis, it should be clarified that the influence of Shakespeare on Ionesco, Beckett and Albee will not be suggested as something meant by these authors, whether they intended to pay homage, consciously or unconsciously, to Shakespeare or not will not be an issue discussed in this paper. However the concept of intertextuality will acquire certain relevance in the analysis, since the suggestion of texts influencing others brings about the idea of the constructive-destructive activity that creates texts out corpus of texts. Therefore by comparing two plays of a period with other three plays of another period, there will be references to intertextuality, similarities among the texts. Shakespeares King Lear and Hamlet will be read as textual sources of the tragic features of the previously mentioned characters of the Theatre of the Absurd. For this purpose, the absurdity of these Shakespearean play and its heroes will be analyzed before they are compared with the heroes of the absurd.The theatre of the absurd and Shakespearean theatre

The first difference to be drawn between Shakespearean theatre and the Theatre of the Absurd is a contextual one. Shakespeare wrote his plays in England during the Renaissance, which meant the rebirth of classical antiquity in the modern world, i.e. artists started to value Greek and Roman art and took the classical arts as a source of inspiration. Although it is true that traces of Greek and Roman drama are distinctively part of Shakespearean theatre, Shakespeare did not fully comply with the features of classic theatre described by Aristotle in the Poetics; he created his own rules. For example, Shakespeare did not abide to the ideas of unity of place, time and action as set by Aristotle; also he did not dedicate to write about Christian themes as most of the Renaissance artists did. This does not mean that there is an absence of religious references in Shakespeare, it rather means that none of his mature tragedies show religion as a main concern and that the philosophical stance of some of his characters is more evident than their religious stance, this is the case of Hamlet. In some of Hamlets most famous soliloquies (e.g. Act III scene I), Hamlet shows that his thinking is more philosophic/reflexive in a popular sense, but not religious (This topic will be further expanded later on). The Theatre of the Absurd developed mainly in Paris during the 1950s but its development continued until the early 1970s and it may be considered an example of Postmodern writing. Most of the absurd dramatists were writing in Paris but their origins were diverse; Beckett was Irish, Ionesco was Romanian and Albee was American (the only one who did not live in France). This contextual reference is essential in order to understand the spirit of absurdity that characterized these artists of that time, a feeling that the world was inexplicable and senseless. Europe had been destroyed by both World Wars and the horrors had left a sense of despair and the sensation that ideologies, science and several things that made people feel safe were no longer able to explain the insanities of the postmodern world. This may have been also be true at Shakespearean times considering that little before, England had faced a civil war and several religious and political conflicts that caused many deaths and probably changed some aspects of the ideology of British people.Postmodernism meant a radical break with classic modernism and contempt towards the period of Enlightment. It is believed that the ideas of progress and reason had failed to explain the tragedies of the 20th century. Therefore, unlike Shakespearean Theatre which reflects a return to classic theatre in certain aspects, the Theatre of the absurd represents a rupture with previous theatrical movements that established how theatre should be done, such as Classic Theatre and Realist Theatre. In terms of classic theatre, Absurd Theatre subverts Aristotles idea of plot, character and dialogue, not to mention the fact that the ideas of unity of time, space and action are quite overlooked. Nevertheless, during the analysis of the heroes of the Absurd Theatre, Some aspects of Aristotles features of a hero will be used as a framework for the analysis. In Endgame or any other of the plays to be analyzed, there is almost an absence of plot because very little happens or everything that happens is cyclical, the actions are even fewer and quite futile and the dialogues reflect a failure in communication and the isolation and misunderstanding that the characters suffer. There are many instances of false starts, unfinished or ungrammatical sentences and senseless speeches or as Esslin claims no truly dialectical exchange of thought occurs in it. This means that what the characters say does not communicate what they think and what they actually mean. The characters almost lack any clear motivation and they do very little to change their almost static and incomprehensible situations. The use of non-communicative speeches, negative structures and free association are characteristics of the Theatre of the Absurd as well they are part of Shakespearean theatre. For example during the scenes in which Hamlet feigns madness, instances of repetition and senseless speech are noticeable. While speaking to Rosencrantz and Guilderstern, Hamlet uses a series of proverbs which do not fit the situation, like (...) while the grass grows (...) which does not have much to do with the context of the conversation.

While Realist theatre presents a concern on social issues which are historically contextualized and tend to show a social concern in a realistic- objective- manner, Absurd Theatre almost lacks time and place references and social issues are not directly addressed. Most of Shakespeares mature plays have contextual references We know, broadly speaking, where the persons live and what their journeys are- the reader can follow the movements of the characters, however it can be argued that in King Lear, as it happens in most plays of the Theatre of the Absurd, the contextual references are not that clear. According to Bradley, in King Lear the indications are so scanty that the readers mind is left not seldom both vague and bewildered, this means that the location and movements of the characters are ambiguous and that they may confuse the reader. For example, it is quite puzzling the location of Glosters castle. This may have been something intended by Shakespeare as to set the focus of the play, not on a political struggle (as a realist writer would have done), but rather as a reflection on almost universal issues of the human condition such as ingratitude or the growth of awareness. Therefore while in some of his plays, Shakespeare addresses metaphysical issues or issues related to the human condition in any place or time, such as loneliness, procrastination, among others, the Absurd Theatre chooses the same focus, disregarding social or historical conditions. Absurdity presents humanity "stripped of the accidental circumstances of social position or historical context, confronted with basic choices", so society and history in the plays to be analyzed are not the forces that led the characters to the situations they are in, just the individual choices they are forced to make.As it was previously mentioned Absurd Theatre developed throughout postmodernism, but not all of the philosophical features of this movement were mentioned and these features, which will be now discussed, most surely influence the creation of the characters to be analyzed. Following Esslins ideas, Existentialism gave birth to the Theatre of the absurd because it showed how a person could face a meaningless existence; the characters embody the ideals of that philosophy, expressing through action and dialogue the absurdity and meaninglessness of the world and this is what is usually considered the existentialist view of life. According to Cambridge Dictionary, existentialism is a modern system of belief (...) in which the world has no meaning and each person is alone and completely responsible for their own actions (...) This idea of senselessness of the world is the product of the disenchantment caused by the tragic events that marked the 20th century and the raising of individualism. The sense of loss of ideologies and religion as tool to understand life or as Nietzsche puts it the death of God gave rise to the ideas that the world is not to be understood and simply to be lived in spite of the nothingness of human existence.

Although contextually speaking, existentialism belongs to postmodernism, the existential attitude has existed for centuries but it was not called so. The first traces of existentialism go back to Greek mythology. The Myth of Sisyphus, which is about a sinner condemned in Tartarus to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it roll back down again.was reread by Albert Camus in the 20th century and reinterpreted as a manifestation of existentialism. The fact that Sisyphus had the futile task to roll up a rock as to just see it go down again and again served as an allegory on how senseless human action can be but as that is his fate, he embraces that destiny and perceives himself as the master of his days, embracing the absurdity of his condition as normal and appreciating that fact that he expects no God or master to save him of his fate. All that is left for Sisyphus is to go on living and doing even if there is no sense in it, raising him to the category of an absurd/existentialist hero.In the light of existentialism as a feature that does not belong to a particular time and Camus analysis of the Myth of Sisyphus, Shakespearean Heroes can be seen in the light of existentialist philosophy and in consequence their absurd features will emerge too. An existentialist view on Shakespearean tragedy is not a novelty, White poses that in his general view of tragedy, Bradley anticipates existentialism. The metaphysical analysis that Bradley does on tragedy and the attention he pays to the idea of fate are starting point on how characters existentialist attitude will reinforce the sense of tragedy and will also add a sense of absurdity to many aspects of the plays.Hamlet and King Lears relation to absurdity

Before delving into a comparison between Hamlet and Lear and the characters of the Absurd Theatre, it seems necessary to establish some general absurd characteristics of Lear and Hamlet as to facilitate the understanding of what particular features are embedded into each character.Following Kott, it can be established that the hero is driven into absurdity when a compulsory situation is created by forcing him into a game in which the probabilities of his total defeat constantly increases, as a result the heroes actions and their hamartia or tragic flaw leads them to a series of absurd choices and situations, What Kott calls game, which will finally take them to an inevitable defeat. This inevitable defeat may be understood as the fate that leads them to their doom or if we take into account Aristotles work, their hamartia precipitates their fall. Both Lear and Hamlet are immersed in very serious situations: Hamlet must revenge his fathers death by killing his traitor uncle and Lear must decide what to do with his kingdom while he still alive. Both characters are facing choices, but as their alternatives of choice seem indeed absurd, irrelevant or compromising, they end up caught in a kind of game. Hamlets choice lies between taking revenge in spite of his own feelings of melancholy and spiritual vacuum because it is his duty, or following his true self and not taking revenge. Both alternatives seem a threat to Hamlets individual integrity, if he does it, he would be betraying his true self but if he doesnt do it, he would be betraying his fathers memory and his father is also part of himself, part of his identity. These games are exemplified by his feigned madness and the set up of The Mousetrap. In this manner, Hamlet enters a game of madness and delusion as an unconscious way to procrastinate choice, a choice that either way it will be contradictory and compromising. Hence, without Hamlets internal conflict, the play would not be a tragedy, but something merely grotesque because the absurdity of certain events such as Polonius death are inexplicable, as an absurd event should be, but not grotesque or funny and this would be so if Hamlet was not torn by a discrepancy between his reasoning and his action. Hamlet has such an internal conflict that his actions do not coincide with what he thinks (his thinking is shown in the soliloquies) and every action he does is done by impulse increasing the gap between his doing and his thinking. Another absurd feature in Hamlet is his existential view of life.Hamlet is unintelligible. Shakespeare intended him to be so, because he himself was feeling strongly, wished his audience to feel strongly what a mystery life is and how impossible it is for us to understand it

In this passage, Bradley explains Hamlets existentialist attitude without using that term, which did not exist by Bradleys time. He tries to understand what Shakespeare must have been feeling in order to create such a puzzling character as Hamlet and probably he is on the right track because Hamlet seems to be in a philosophical search of identity and in the path he understands the senselessness of human existence and feels what a mystery life is. Throughout the play, there are many instances in which Hamlet shows how confusing human existence can be. For example on act II scene II, he exclaims What a piece of work is a man!, suggesting how difficult the understanding of any man can be. Also he posits many unanswerable questions as a philosopher would do in order to understand diversity of issues related to human condition, especially death. On act III scene I, Hamlet questions the sense of continuing alive if one should suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune i.e. lifes misfortunes. So through this speech, Hamlet explores the absurdity of human action considering that death is the final destiny and death is a mystery to everyone. God does not interfere in his logic, he seems quite certain that everything, even death, should be a matter of choice, which is what an existentialist would pose. Another absurd feature in Hamlet is the metatheatrical allusion while Hamlet dedicates to instruct the actors on the play the Mousetrap (act II scene II) . He comments upon the actors abilities to perform their feelings: A broken voice, and his whole function suiting with forms to his conceit?. This passage tells how an actor changes everything in order to make his crying believable, which can be described as a lying bare of the devices behind theatre. It is quite common the use of metathetrical allusions in Absurd Theatre, in some cases the actors seem even to be addressing the audience. In Endgame, Hamm says did you never hear an aside before? , referring to the aside that he has just said but which has been heard by Clov and has confused him. This quote lays bare a common device in theatre which is somehow inverted because it has lost its original value, a speech that can only be heard by the audience.Another characteristic of postmodernism that is noticeable in Hamlet is the Chinese box worlds i.e. a story in narrated within the story and theres a mirror reflection of both worlds. Inside Hamlets story, theres another story The Mousetrap which reflects the first one. This same characteristic is seen in Endgame, but with some alterations. Hamm tells a story within the play and in spite of the fact that no name is mentioned, the reader may grasp the feeling that the little boy is Clov and that story was already kind of floating in the atmosphere of Hamm and Clovs relationship. King Lear begins showing Lear making an absurd demand, a measurement of his daughters love in terms of words, as if love was only a matter of saying and not doing. Lears folly may struck as absurd and not worthy of a great monarch like Lear. This original absurdity is probably provoked by Lears need to choose what to do with his kingdom while he is still alive. If he leaves the kingdom undivided before his death, there will probably be a conflict between his daughter on how it should be divided but at the same time giving away his kingdom means resigning to part of who he is. This compromises his integrity and identity. In addition, he might have wanted to find a just way to benefit Cordelia without making the others jealous. But the result is quite different and Cordelias ideals and stubbornness are stronger than her fathers wish for compliments. This is the point when Lear enters a game of love and the reader can grasp the absurdity of it. Lears hamartia is probably his passion. His love is so strong that it demands strong manifestation of emotions but when this is not fulfill, he shows a childish attitude by manipulating what he gives to each daughter as if his own kingdom was a toy to lend or not lend. After Lear has done his fatal error, he suffers the ingratitude of Goneril and Regan. From this moment onwards, Lear will go through a transformation which will give him a greater awareness but also a sense of hopelessness, characteristic of an existentialist hero and that will find its greatest peak during the storm.

Another feature of absurdism traceable in the play is the fool as a truth teller, a character who embraces the absurdities of life and people and points them out in a funny fashion. In Spite of his lower social class, the fool shows more wisdom than Lear and even patronizes Lear. This polyphony and inversion of social order are quite common in the absurd too. By saying Lear is a shadow( act I scene IV), the fool informs Lear what nobody else had said to him and that is that he has given away all he owned and therefore he is no longer Lear.The subplot of King Lear also exposes some aspects of the absurd. Firstly, Edgar feigns madness as a disguise and takes advantage of his impunity to say what he thinks. The moments when he pretends madness, his speech highly resembles Absurd Theatre speeches because of his use of ungrammatical sentences and senseless phrases as in Pillicock sat on Pillicocks hill;- Haloo, Haloo, loo,loo! (Act III scene III), which is an unintelligible phrase. Furthermore, the subplot exposes an even more ridiculous situation. Firstly Bradley wanders why Gloster would go to Dover to end his life and this is something which is unanswerable taking into account just the text and it certainly seems an unmotivated and senseless choice for his suicide. Secondly, in what absurd universe would a blind man ask a madman to accompany him to his suicide, Gloster could have had better options. These two facts seem to set the mood for an absurd scene and this is probably confirmed by the resolution of the conflict. Edgar tricks his father into believing that he has fallen but a miracle has made him survive the fall unharmed. However, Edgar and Glosters world becomes more insane and a real mockery of what anyone would expect from life, when Edgar tells Gloster who he really is and this affects the old mans heart causing his death. The greatest irony and absurdity of this story lies on this event, the saver kills indirectly the person he has just saved. King Lear and Amade or hot to get rid of itThe cases of intertextual reference between these two plays are almost nonexistent. Nevertheless, the tone of both is what may imply a certain familiarity between both plays. Firstly both plays present difficulties in terms of stage craft. Bradley exclaims King Lear is too huge for the stage and certain scene which are essential for the development of the tragic features of the hero seem too difficult to be performed in a dignified and realistic manner. If the storm is not adequately made, the tragic effect of Lear facing the elements which are a reflection of his emotions, may look like the pathetic attempt of an old man against a storm. This same stage difficulty is evident in the ending of Amade or How to get rid of it. If the corpse is not what takes Amade through the skies, then the moment of catharsis, when we pity Amade for the high prize he had to pay for a mistake of the past, would be completely lost and the absurdity of Amades existence would lose force. Therefore what King Lear and Amade have in common is their imaginative effect on the reader. It can even be said that they are plays to be read rather than acted out. The plays appeals to the idea of letting ones mind fly, to the readers imagination and not the senses. In the imaginative effect is where the strength of the heroes lies, the magic effect of the storm and the magic effect of flying vindicates the heroes images, makes the audience sympathize with them. In the case of Lear, the storm may appear as a way to expiate what he has done to his younger daughter. King Lear and the Zoo StoryAs it was previously mentioned, Lears hamartia is that as he loves with excess, he expects excess in return and sincerity is something that his passion does not recognize. Jerrys hamartia, on the other hand, is quite the opposite; he lacks passion, which is a common feature in many characters of the Theatre of the Absurd. Jerry has felt isolated his whole life and he is unable to communicate with people, this is represented by the two empty frame that he mentions. The same kind of failure in communication seems to be present in Lear, who was incapable of recognizing insincerity or interpreting modesty in his daughters speeches. This failure to connect with other peoples true self leads both characters to human conflict and to the awareness of the absurdity of communication through words. This is perhaps the reason why Jerry starts valuing animal, who will actually express what they mean.The other similarity between Lear and Jerry lies on their relation to animal life; both characters face beasts figuratively speaking. Lear feels that Goneril and Regan are beats, in just one passage of act III scene III, he calls them (...) hog (...), wolf (...), dog in madness and lion in prayThese references to animals as a comparison point with his daughters and many other passages give the impression that Lear is not dealing with people but rather with beasts and this is perhaps the reason why he cannot communicate with them. Jerrys conflict is actually with a dog he hates, but the dog and Jerry were finally able to make a connection and this reinforces in Jerry the feeling of isolation and the need to seek some meaning to his existence. The tragedy lies on the fact that existence is meaningless and Jerrys attempts to connect with other beings were futile. Only tragedy made him leave an unforgettable trace in another persons mind and that was his purpose.Both characters have a distinct purpose in different points of the play; they know what they want. For example during the storm, Lear seeks expiation and oblivion and with his death Jerry seeks a human connection, seeks to create a compulsory necessity to be remembered by someone. King Lear and EndgameAs it was mentioned before, the absurdity of a tragedy lies in the compulsory game that the hero is doomed to play. In Endgame, the title expresses the fact that the absurd heroes Hamm and Clov are playing a game which seems to be reaching an end. This game is, as in King Lear, a game of love and necessity. Hamm is handicapped and Lear is old, both of them feel the need to be taken care of by someone who loves them. Hamm is looked after by Clov, who perhaps had once loved him but now their relationship has perverted into a game of words and necessity. They dont want to be together, they are fed up of each other but they cannot separate; Clov stay for the dialogue and Hamm needs him to do thing for him. Lear expects his daughters to love him and take care of him but he also fails to reach this relationship with them which is a part of his tragedy.Another similarity between Hamm and Lear is that both feel that nature is against them because both are old and their physical strength has faded. This existentialist sensation that nature is no longer something that can be faced or benefiting for them due to old age is part of their tragedy. Lear expresses this sense of loss by facing a storm as an attempt to regain contact with nature. Hamm expresses his sense of loss by saying nature has forgotten us because none of nature gifts are any longer available for him. Therefore the only natural thing that will change both characters is death or in the case of Hamm something which is not even natural, the rest of his life in a bin as it is the case of Nagg and Nell.Hamlet and Amade or hot to get rid of itHamlet seems to have exercised a greater influence on the creation of Amade than in any other character. Firstly, both characters share a very important feature, their hamartia is procrastination. Amade wants to delay his duty of getting rid of the corpse; he even asks what if I went tomorrow? (Act II) in an attempt to delay something that cannot be delayed because the body has already occupied a great part of their house. While Hamlet also delays his duty to revenge his father as a result of his previously mentioned internal conflict. Both characters procrastination is absurd because it comes from their intrinsic life but the events that occur around them need immediate actions and these delays only precipitate their fate. Amade is affected by the fact that every minute the corpses size increases and it makes more difficult its movement and Hamlet is affected by the fact that his uncle is more aware of his revenge plan and he is preparing a plan to get rid of him.Their absurd condition is not only driven by procrastination but also by the fact that both are haunted by dead people, the growing corpse and his fathers ghost, which obliges them to act without feeling the resolution to do it and drive them away from what they enjoy: The intellectual world. In the case of Hamlet is the university and in Amades case is writing. This contact with death from the very beginning raise in them questions regarding life and death and fill their aura with a sense of hopelessness, that not even in dead people rest.Hamlet exposes two other characters that resemble the hero of the story in many ways. Laertes has lost his father as Hamlet and he wants revenge, Fortimbras has lost his Kingdom just like Hamlet and he wants it back. Both characters are like a more resolute mirror image of Hamlet. This idea of people living the same kind of destinies is taken to an extreme by Ionesco during act II when a second Amade starts to act while the real Amade is waiting for the night. Hamlet and the Zoo story

Peter resembles Hamlet because events lead him to a murder that he has never intend to make. Hamlet kills Polonious and Laertes as a consequence of a chain of events that place them in the wrong place, in the wrong time. In the case of Polonious, Hamlet kills him in an impulse without really knowing who he is because he was hiding behind a curtain before the crime. Something similar occurs to Peter, who does not want to kill Jerry, but Jerry wisely manipulates him in such a way that Peter picks up the knife and Jerry impales himself on the knife The absurdity of this accidental death does not only raise Jerry to the level of absurd tragic hero because he chose death as a way to make a connection with someone but also Peter becomes a tragic hero because he has been forced to come out of the numb comfort of his bourgeois reality and he faced the senselessness and absurdity of human life and death. Although Hamlet does not show regret after killing Polonious and even jokes about it (Act V scene III), the fragility of human life may have caused an impression on him because later on in act V scene I, Hamlet reflects again about death as he takes Yoricks skull.Jerry has also some reminiscences of Hamlet in the sense that both characters seem to be the reflective type who are going through a great melancholy which makes them feel more vividly the absurdity of life and to suffer their inability to make connections to people, especially women. Hamlet cannot stand Ophelia during his melancholic state and Jerry cannot stand any woman for more than an hour.Conclusion

Summing up, Shakespeare has most likely influenced every piece of theatre in western literature, so probably traces of his greatest heroes like Lear and Hamlet could be found in thousands of literary works. Nevertheless, the amount of examples of absurdism found in both plays may imply that the influence on the absurd is not purely accidental or just the result of a culture which has been modeled, in part, by Shakespearean theatre, but that Absurd Theatre has been shaped on the basis of Shakespearean tragedy. Although it is true that many differences could be also drawn between both theatrical movements, the language used by Shakespeares fools and madmen exposes the same devices (repetition, ungrammaticality, false starts, etc) as the language used by the characters of the theatre of the Absurd. Also the heroes tragic flaws tend to coincide and this is perhaps because absurdity is only embraced if the character possesses certain personal characteristics as it was seen on some characters of the analysis. It is also difficult to deny the fact that the sensation of hopelessness and certain bitterness when facing choice are features which can be observable in both sets of characters.Nonetheless, absurdist theatre is not merely the merit of Shakespeare. Some absurd features of the characters, for example the fear to loneliness is not an issue that Shakespeare exposed in an absurd manner in these plays, so Absurd Theatre only took some aspects on Shakespearean theatre and gave them other dimensions, trying to intensify an absurd and gloomy perception of human existence. This Gloominess is not so deeply engrained in Shakespeare because the tragic endings seems to vindicate the heroes, but this is not so in most instances of Absurd theatre. For instance in Endgame, the ending is not clear at all, so we are not actually sure is Clov has left or not and Hamm seems to remain in his static situation.

In conclusion, The Shakespearean hero has influenced some basic aspects of the hero of the Absurd but in surface this is not so noticeable because many others have been modified or exaggerated e.g. Amades procrastination is an exaggeration of Hamlets tendency to procrastinate. It can be concluded that these sets of heroes are linked by common psychological feature which is the consciousness of the absurdity of human condition while facing a dilemma. Bloom H. The western canon. New York: Penguin Group incorporated, 1992

Kiebuzinska C. Intertextual loops in Modern Drama. London: Rosemont publishing and printing corp., 2001

Ibid.

Ibid.

Kaufmann W. From Shakespeare to existentialism. United State of America: first Princeton paperback writing, 1980.

Here I quote Phd. Gabriela Leighton, who said did during a class.

Aristotle. The poetics. Translated by S.H, Butcher. Provided by HYPERLINK "http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/Poetics.html" http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/Poetics.html Date: 11th April 2010.

Bradley,A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: St Martin Press, 1978.

This idea follows Susana Acordes explanation during one of he classes.

Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. London: Penguin book Ltd. 1968

Kaufmann W. From Shakespeare to existentialism. Op. Cit.

Styan L. Modern Drama in theory and practice 2 Symbolism, surrealism and the Absurd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. Op. Cit.

Shakespeare W. Hamlet..London: Longman Group limited, 1979

Bradley,A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit

Ibid

White R.S. Shakesperean Criticism in the Twentieth Century. Usa: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Criticism on Samuel Beckett retrieved from HYPERLINK "http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm" http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm. Date: January 2012

For this idea I am following Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. Op Cit.

This was retrieved from the online Cambridge dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ Date: February 2012

For this idea, I am following Esslin M. on the introduction To Four plays of the Absurd drama. Great Britain: Penguin book, 1967.

Kaufmann W. From Shakespeare to existentialism. Op. Cit.

Here I quote because the term nothingness as an existetialist term was first coined by Jean Paul Sarter and belong to a famous quote that says We are nothing and in action we become conscious of that original nothingness HYPERLINK "http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm" http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm accessed on February 2012.

The original myth of Sisyphus was retrieved from HYPERLINK "http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html" http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html Date: February 2012

Camus A. The myth of Sisyphus HYPERLINK "http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/00/pwillen1/lit/msysip.htm" http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/00/pwillen1/lit/msysip.htm Date: February 2012

Ibid.

Ibid.

Aristotle. The poetics. Op. Cit.

Ibid

Kott J. Shakespeare our contemporary. London: Methuen Publishing Ltd, 1967

Ibid

Aristotle. The poetics. Op. Cit.

Kott J. Shakespeare our contemporary. Op. Cit.

The idea of Hamlets melancholic state is posed by Bradley A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit.

For this idea I am following ibid

This quote belongs to Brecht but it was read in Kott . Shakespeare our contemporary. Op. Cit.

Bradley A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit.

Shakespeare W. Hamlet. Op. Cit.

Ibid

Here, I follow Susana Acordes views on Formalism

Beckett S. Endgame. Downloaded from HYPERLINK "http://samuel-beckett.net/endgame.html" http://samuel-beckett.net/endgame.html. Date: December 2011

This idea is following Susana Acordes class on Brian Mc hales theory

Here, I follow Bradley A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit.

For this idea, I follow Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. Op Cit.

Shakespeare W. King Lear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Ibid.

Bradley A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. Op.Cit.

Ibid

This idea agrees with Esslins ideas on the introduction To Four plays of the Absurd drama. Op. Cit.

Shakespeare W. King Lear. Op. Cit.

Beckett S. Endgame. Op. Cit.

Ibid

Ionesco E. Amade or How to Get Rid of it in Four plays of the Absurd drama. Op. Cit.

Albee E. The Zoo Story in Four plays of the Absurd drama. Op. Cit.

Bibliography:

Albee E. The Zoo Story in Four plays of the Absurd drama. Great Britain: Penguin book, 1967.

Aristotle. The poetics. Translated by S.H, Butcher. Provided by HYPERLINK "http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/Poetics.html" http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/Poetics.html Date: 11th April 2010.

Beckett S. Endgame. Downloaded from HYPERLINK "http://samuel-beckett.net/endgame.html" http://samuel-beckett.net/endgame.html. Date: December 2011

Bloom H. The western canon. New York: Penguin Group incorporated, 1992

Bradley,A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: St Martin Press, 1978.

Esslin M. The Theatre of the Absurd. London: Penguin book Ltd. 1968

Esslin M. on the introduction To Four plays of the Absurd drama. Great Britain: Penguin book, 1967.

Kaufmann W. From Shakespeare to existentialism. United State of America: first Princeton paperback writing, 1980.

Kiebuzinska C. Intertextual loops in Modern Drama. London: Rosemont publishing and printing corp., 2001

Kott J. Shakespeare our contemporary. London: Methuen Publishing Ltd, 1967.

Ionesco E. Amade or How to Get Rid of it in Four plays of the Absurd drama. Great Britain: Penguin book, 1967.

Shakespeare W. King Lear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Shakespeare W. Hamlet..London: Longman Group limited, 1979

Styan L. Modern Drama in theory and practice 2 Symbolism, surrealism and the Absurd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Tylliard, E.M.W. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Pelican, 1972.

White R.S. Shakesperean Criticism in the Twentieth Century. Usa: Oxford University Press, 2001

the online Cambridge dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ Date: February 2012

Camus A. The myth of Sisyphus

HYPERLINK "http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/00/pwillen1/lit/msysip.htm" http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/00/pwillen1/lit/msysip.htm Date: February 2012

myth of Sisyphus was retrieved from HYPERLINK "http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html" http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html Date: February 2012.

Criticism on Samuel Beckett HYPERLINK "http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm" http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdAndBeck.htm.