SHAKESPEARE (1564 - 1616)

Elizabethan period [1558 1603] - Queen Elizabeth I

Jacobean period [1603 1625] - King James I
Caroline period [1625 1649] - King Charles I
a very problematic period because of the rise of puritanism; they were very much against theatre,
they say it as the source of vice an immorality
=> 1642: they closed down all the theatres
=> the end of the golden age of the theatre
Periods of Shakespeare's life:
1. up until 1600: apprenticeship he was trying to learn the trade
Comedy of errors; a number of so-called 'history plays': a sub-genre of his drama, he would
fictionalize the life of a certain king: Richard II, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, King John
2. after 1600: he wrote his maturer works; tragedies: Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth,
Anthony and Cleopatra; comedies: The Merchant of Venice, A Midsummer Night's Dream,
Measure for Measure, Taming of the Shrew, The Tempest (one of his last plays, he bids
farewell to the world of theatre in it)
The Two Noble Kinsmen: critics doubt his authorship here; it was not uncommon to take someone
else's work and make it your own
Cardenio: a lost play; we know it existed, but there are no copies left
There are some who doubt even Shakespeare's identity, existence; someone else might have
published the works under his name because he/she couldn under his/her own?
- candidates: de Vere, Earl of Derby, Sir Francis Bacon, Queen Elizabeth...
Communicative values: a major criterion when studying his dramas; How something can be
staged/communicated.
Characters = dramatic personae
there has to be a certain development if a play wants to be successful:

Shakespeare's language:
English has always been a very dynamic language, absorbing the foreign influences very
quickly (Germanic, Celtic, Roman, Scandinavian, French influences);
also in his era: so-called modern English was emerging.
Vocabulary that he uses was greatly expanded with the view of the past;
he introduced app. 2000 new words; these words were taken from
other languages,
spheres of life
( English was absorbing new words extremely rapidly: the result of the
many wars,
expanding trade, exploration, very lively diplomacy,
beginnings of colonization, pirating actually supported by the state in
order to control certain parts of the sea robbed - Spanish
ships)
he uses some 20 000 words in his plays; he expresses shades of meaning in very different
ways
many of his phrases are now part of everyday speech
Problem in his English:
Spelling was not fixed; example:
1. goeth, doth and goes and does inconsistency
2. thou, thee, ye : archaic forms and emerging counterpart you;
3. even his own name is spelled in many different ways
gender also not fixed: he would use pronouns erratically, inconsistently: he would start
with he, then she, then back to he; he
probably wanted to say that whatever he is saying is
true for both genders; same purpose cross-dressing (in comedies, especially);

some of his contemporaries were doing it too, but not on such a large
scale
usage of verse and prose: prose, non-rhymed line used when character speak about a
certain event, not to express sth poetic, philosophical; verse is used when he speaks
about the heightened reality; soliloquies etc.
he would use iambic pentameter it gives the feeling of comfort and reassurance,
solution, sth positive; sometimes he would add another
syllable to amplify the meaning
Shakespeare and his time/description of life
Shakespeare was never just a chronicler of his time, though Jacobean players/actors were
considered to be writing the chronicle of the period, to put down the history of the period; he goes
beyond!
His plays echo the political situation, problems, social antagonism, but although this reflects
his age, he also was able to express the new theatricality of English life. Ben Jonson, his
contemporary and friend, he said right after his death: Shakespeare was not of an age, but for all
time. he showed certain patterns of human behaviour, went far beyond political and social
situation
on the other hand, Shakespeare was shrewd enough, he was able to see the situation; he flattered
the Queen and later the King, but only to get away with some of the sharp criticism of the
system;
a group of critics who wrote Reinventing Shakespeare: they say that Shakespeare was just a
magician of the English language, the most influential Elizabethan playwright, but he knew when to
flatter the Queen& co.
=>he should really be seen as a conservative: he helped the existing regime to remain in
power, not revolutionary enough; there were many revolutionary attempts during his time
(attempt to blow up the parliament etc.) and he only very lightly touches upon these issues
BUT: he goes beyond the established conventional beliefs of his era, he's only very subtle in
wording these revolutionary ideas; he did open eyes to his Elizabethan audiences and he was
critical on many occasions and some of his plays were committed , were performed after some
situation in the monarchy ( after the question of succession of Queen Elizabeth Julius Caesar:
assassination of an emperor, this is why the play is problematic)
Throughout history he has become somewhat of a myth, greatly admired; German romanticism
looked upon him
Slovenian response: one of the first translators was Ivan Cankar, who was also socially aware;
earlier, A.T. Linhart was influenced by certain Shakespeare's plays and we can alsomfind certain
elements in Preeren, certain characters are reminiscent of Shakespeare's characters
in the 20th century S is played almost continuously on Slovenian stage, lasting effect
The social situation of Elizabethan period => affected his plays
the struggle for power: the parliament vs. the sovereign
also the religious issue: Henry VIII created the protestant church and he nationalized the
possession of the Roman Catholic Church.
Elizabeth's first task was to achieve stability and peace and she was successful, helped by
Lord Chancellor Burghley; also had a very well established spy network and she
achieved a kind of truce between the various churches for a while;
unrest was still occasionally coming out
Shakespeare himself may have been a papist and even his daughter is said to have been
3

popishly affected. During his life, there are the so-called lost years (no records); he may have
been in France (=strong catholic country)
just before Queen Elizabeth came into power, Wales became a part of the kingdom, she
strengthened the English presence in Wales
Scotland remained a concern (Mary Queen of Scotts eventually executed); during her
time, Scotland was not part of the kingdom, this officially happened in 1707 (before two
states with one monarch)
Shakespeare study:
has changes radically: major difference when we compare the approach before the late 1980's
and today
old: belief that Shakespeare through his characters showed some
eternal, universal values
of human psychology
now: the old approach is challenged; there were many changes in the philosophical views;
today we believe that everything takes place
in a very particular space and time
(history) there are no abstract, general, universal qualities in a particular character;
example: love as Shakespeare shows it: the love between Romeo & Juliet in Verona is not the same
as love in the 21st century in Tokio;
the nature of that emotion depends on the society in which the two lovers live, on practices and
beliefs of that society; the same kind of emotion but it does not exist independently outside its
historical context
this old approach that endorsed and looked for universal values of
love, hatred, ambition;
this approach was called character criticism because many of the critics were concentrated only
on individual characters and their psychology; they considered them as accurate portraits of
imaginary, but real people, who can't be treated as unified individuals.
they started to generalize; Hamlet = intellectual who thinks to much and cannot decide, Othello
is a Moor, sb of other nationality, sb prone to terrible jealousy
BUT this is an assumption because world and life are much more complex and contradictory and
an individual person is much more indefinable
various different approaches to actually come to the bottom of a person;
it not only takes into consideration the social and political context in to which the characters are
placed, but also the subconsciousness, various motifs that reside in the psyche; it essentially looks
first at the society and social relations and psyche and THEN at the individual characters but
WITHIN this context
Various editions of Shakespeare's work:
the first edition of his works is the so-called Quarto edition (quarto = sheet of paper was
folded twice, to make 4 pages) ; it was incomplete, many misspellings, many omissions; we
can refer to this edition as the pirated edition => was not endorsed, authorised by
Shakespeare
there was no such thing as copy-rights at the time; authors would steal from each other
Folio editions (one sheet of paper, the printing process became more sophisticated, more
complete): the most important edition came out in 1623, after his death, put together by
his friends, actors: 36 plays, the quintessential, complete collection;
more folio editions followed then, republished, re-edited; each time the editor added
something new
18th century: Alexander Pope edited his plays, added punctuation, he divided his acts
into scenes
to this day there have been many editions; Stanley Wells: edited his plays, very reliable
It's a mistake to view an Elizabethan play as a single perfect work! Shakespeare himself was an
actor and the original plays that he produced were later modified according to what he thought was
better
4

 several version of his plays, only later fixed plays

publication government censorship: politically offensive parts had to be taken out
Theatre:
The Globe theatre (he was a stockholder there;) it burnt down, but the New Globe was
erected at the scene
The Swan theatre
The Rose theatre
The Curtain theatre
The Blackfriars theatre (built by James Burbage, famous actor)
No attempt to create the illusion of reality on the Elizabethan stage, no verisimilitude; the idea was
to concentrate on the dialogue rather than the props and scenery, which was minimalistic, the
stage was rather empty. They believed that the text has the real power and that the audience must
use their imagination.
It had a circular form, picture frame stage - juts out into the pit so the actors were very close to
the audience, no curtain separating the audience and the stage
they didn't want to recreate reality, but they wanted to break down the so-called theatrical
illusion, to create a feeling that the actors on stage are actually so close to the audience that it is
actually happening.
This kind of a stage is an imitation, goes back to the Greek form of the theatre; to stress there
is no clear demarcation line between reality and the world of fiction; the viewers would make
comments to the actors, they would reply etc
Elizabethan view of theatre: reality not much different from play; Shakespeare expressed this in
several of his plays where he speaks of power of the theatre; All the world is the stage his
metaphor; interchangeable
Structure of the plays affected by the structure of the theatre
the exchange of scenes was very rapid, lively, to keep the audience interested; no formal
division of plays into acts : flow of events
Theatre and society:
the only place where the higher and lower classes got together
an important site of social interaction
important role in this time, it wasn't just an art form:
Theatre was anti-religious, socially critical, even decadent in some
respects; it can
change views, is influential!!
theatre celebrated individual patrons:Elizabethan and Jacobean periods are characterised
by this great love, development in theatre
BUT: king interested in controlling such an important social weapon, saw theatre not
only as a form of entertainment but also a form of
their own promotion social influence;
before the development of theatre, which was meteoric, the main form of literary appreciation
was poetry.
a place to voice social, public opinions on contemporary issues, events
political and social criticism voiced through plays (subtly!);
Attitude towards religion: religious strife very much alive,
many playwrights would criticise the Church, especially Catholicism;
this antiCatholic attitude was often expressed very subtly you were
expected not to ignite anger in
the theatre

During Queen Elizabeth's reign, the period of classical antiquity (Greece + Rome) was greatly
admired: Ovid, Seneca, Cicero, Horace; also Aristotle and his influence on the views of tragedy
Shakespeare also took sources from the classical tradition
always anglicised his characters and topics so that they always have some reference to his
own period; he wanted to make his audience think about something.
Rise of puritans: theatres increasingly seen as unhealthy places where you could contract plague,
where petty crime took place, where loose morals were shown on stage especially with regards
to sexuality.
theatres were closed, end of the golden era.
after the golden age, puritans advocated not this kind of theatre, which was about real life, but the
tradition of the medieval theatre, miracle and morality plays, allegorical representations
rather than real life.
theatre should be used as a form of instruction to make people more morally virtuous
In England theatre developed in two ways, strains:
1. erudite theatre:
concentrated on the knowledge of the past and was meant more for higher classes, was also
more attended by them
built on the classical tradition of Greek and Roman theatre, imitated their works, many
allusions to the Greek theatre
formal, strict verse
indoor: they would be able to use lighting, candles
2.

popular theatre
a lot of improvisation on the spot
outdoor: depended on daylight
used spectacle very frequently in order to attract the non-elitist audience; it had to be
visually appealing (but not with props!)
small things like a dress, a certain appearance of something
unexpected; also
glamour, song and dance
stock characters or types, stock plots and stereotypes
There was no such concept of an individual as we have today; characters were not seen
as unique but as representatives of a
certain class; characters of his contemporaries ARE
like that, much
more simplified. BUT: Shakespeare was ahead of his time;goes beyond
that, creates round, complex characters; he may use a stock character/plot but then he deconstructs this plot
commedia del'arte: professional troupes of actors from Italy etc; stock characters;
influenced the British comedy to some extent
Elizabethan drama is a mixture of this two traditions, a little bit of everything: spectacle + stock
plots + allusions to antiquity
Shakespeare's early work /apprenticeship [up to 1600]
During this period, he did not do much to promote himself and his work, he also disappeared for a
while.
Also, he wrote poems, sonnets, The Rape of Lucrece (dedicated to the Earl of Southampton this
relationship is much discussed)
6

his name appears associated with various theatre groups;

The Admiral's Men, then he joined Lord Chamberlains Men working together with the most
famous actor of the Elizabethan period: Richard Burbage
He also helped his family with his money, he bought himself a house in Stratford
His contemporaries minor playwrights like Robert Greene charged him with stealing topics
and themes from other playwrights; but using themes that have been used before, by
contemporaries or in antiquity was the convention during that time, we cannot talk about piracy.
Elizabethan plays were not written, but they circulated, they differed, existed in various version,
only eventually they were written down and most of the Elizabethan plays werent even published,
so it's hard to say who stole what and who not. So, stealing was original.
!!! S's strength as a playwright is not in inventing the original plot, but rather in transforming
the material that had been used before in his own special, artistic way --> they emerged
original.
There was a group of Shakespeare's contemporaries called the University Wits, who were much
better educated than Shakespeare, had knowledge of earlier antique work: they complained of
Shakespeare stealing it;
but many of them were his rivals, like Christopher Marlowe, John Lyly, Christopher Nashe, George
Peele.
Shakespeare did not have a very sound knowledge of Greek and Latin models, in fact; one
contemporary wrote that Shakespeare knew small Latin and less Greek. Many of the sources that
Shakespeare uses are inaccurate, incorrect.
Contemporaries like John Fletcher his friend, collaborator on at least one play. He also succeeded
Shakespeare after his death in the Globe theatre as the author and share-holder.
Mature period [1600 -> ]:
he becomes well know, he earns substantially from his performances theatre is a
lucrative business now
already labelled by contemporary critics as the most excellent playwright, poet; they
compare him to Ovid and Seneca.
at the peak of his career extremely prolific, he produced at least one play per year, although
not all of them were performed during his lifetime only a half of his plays was printed
before his death.
In 1603, King James came into power Jacobean era. He was much taken by theatre, even
more than Queen Elizabeth; took over the patronage of the Lord Chamberlains Men
The King's Men;
They were given the permission, lease to perform in the Blackfriars
Theatre an
indoor theatre; many masques (special form of
entertainment) were performed because King
James liked them, also
other plays by Shakespeare
Shakespeare became associated with the Globe, an outdoor theatre. It later burnt down;
many Shakespeare's plays may have been lost then
The renaissance comedy:
important, popular; a few well-known authors like Stevenson and Udall (Ralph Roister
Doister the first comedy in the English language) who immediately preceded
Shakespeare; Comedy of Errors written in this tradition
Ben Jonson: author of comedies; greatly admired the classical tradition. He was
Shakespeare's contemporary, rival, also admired him

Elizabethan tragedy:
imitated the classical model;
Aristotle's views and Seneca (translated at the time) were highly appreciated - he was
representative of the stoic philosophy and believed that the hero of the tragedy must
preserve some sort of stoic dignity in his acts, despite the fact that the hero of the tragedy
is faced with the acts of gods upon which he has no influence. The power of gods is not
necessarily just but the fate has to be stoically taken.
This Seneca's model was only influential with some Elizabethan
playwright.
Shakespeare: character is to blame rather than the
gods, he puts it all on his/her
decisions. Seneca's plays were
philosophical, trying to illustrate his philosophy whilst
Shakespeare's
plays are not philosophical plays. Seneca's plays were actually more
intended to be read not performed closet plays
REVENGE TRAGEDY
a popular form in the early 17th century when Shakespeare was in his mature period;
there's a murder: the murderer is high on the social ladder, usually the murdered
person is a near relative. The avenger faced with the problem of how to carry out
the revenge:
family relationship + social importance difficult to carry the
revenge out, double dilemma, he hesitates (Hamlet, the avenger, is
related to
the murderer and it's difficult to kill a king who is
married to his mother)
Tradition: you had a duty to revenge an injury to a member of a family, - they
believed in this right. On the other hand, the Christian religion abhores it, vengeance
should be left for the Lord
they made the avenger look as the instrument of the divine
vengeance; half way between the avengers and God's will;
Hamlet, Titus Andronicus, The Merchant of Venice: to some extent
based on this
model -> Hamlet would like to carry out the revenge
but he also abhors doing it (religious
reasons, domestic reasons);
a lot of physical violence on stage, many people die, are murdered. The stage is littered
with dead bodies and corpses. The authors believed that the audience has to be shocked
in order to think about certain issues, it must experience pity and fear, purgation of
emotions (according to Aristotle)
Thomas Kyd: shows a great deal of influence from Seneca and his stoicism; the
representative of the revenge tragedy tradition; particularly famous for his play The
Spanish Tragedy:
--> direct influence on the young, apprentice playwright Shakespeare.
It was so popular that it was even parodied by some authors
because they were fed up with the conventions that the play
brought:
Thomas Heywood and John Fletcher: The Knight of
the Burning Pestle: interesting
play, experimental, innovative

Kyd is thought by some critics to be the author of the first English

version
of Hamlet.
Shakespeare uses revenge tragedy as a model, but transforms it Hamlet!!
The Spanish tragedy vs Hamlet: Kyd's play lacks Shakespeare's brilliance in terms of
verse, intellectual content, but its structure is nonetheless very firm. Kyd is much less
philosophically interesting. In the centre of Kyd's play: strong emotions, human passion;
in Hamlet we have much more.
The Spanish Tragedy, or Hieronimo Is Mad Again is set into a historical background of
8

the Spanish victory of Portugal in the 16th century; (took great liberty with the historical
fact);
several characters in the play and several murders committed,
several avengers;
each of them obsessed with a violent thirst for
revenge.
The ghost of the murdered called Andrea appears. Horatio was also
murdered, his
father Hieronimo and beloved Bel-imperia plot the destruction of Lorenzo and Balthazar, guilty of
both murders; they kill the villains
The play itself takes place at the Spanish court.
It has a subtitle: Hieronimo is mad again (concept of feigned madness Hamlet);
Concept of a play within a play, revenge through it
Another typical play by Shakespeare written along this lines but is not well-known:
Titus Andronicus. It's about revenge and murder; it shows rape, physical mutilation,
cannibalism to shock the audience
John Webster: a special form of the revenge tragedy
tragedy of retribution: the evil doers ought to be avenged but
this kind is
still different from Kyd's and Shakespeare's plays: the
focus not so much on the avenger
and his dilemma but rather on
the crime and on the fact that in one way or another
this foul
deed has to be paid for.
his tragedies are not so tightly constructed as those by Kyd but
we can say
that because of Eliot and other contemporary British
authors he was even more
influential for the modern production
T. S. Eliot revived the interest for the Jacobean drama in the 20th century: his work full of reference
to this era, quotations from the Jacobean drama
Webster's famous plays: The White Devil and The Duchess of Malfi; many coincidences, chance
events -> loose structure
Webster follows the footsteps of Marlowe, he focusses on violent crimes, strong emotions; set in
Italy these Mediterranean locations were seen as places of decadence, of gothic, of incest,
violence
An important source of inspiration for Shakespeare : Matteo Bandello: his novellas were translated
in English at that time rich source for plots;
We can see Webster's influence in Harold Pinter, Joe Orton or
Edward Bond: they are all fond of grotesque scenes showing the absurdity of the world --> theatre
of cruelty, stress on physical and mental suffering
Shakespeare in his early plays was quite critical and ironical about the theatre tradition of his
time, wants to go beyond the conventions. But he had to start with a certain model, stock
character, stereotype, element and transformed it completely in his own way. In fact, his plays
show a kind of restlessness, a vision of some new England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth:
emerging empire + physical expansion vs. going beyond the conventions in theatre
An underlined constant of this search and criticism of the conventions was the challenge and the
undermining of the authority of the Church as an institution. -> Shakespeare's position here is
not so clear.
His contemporary and rival Marlowe was openly an atheist, which was problematic at the time evidence given by his rival Thomas Kyd that he spoke publicly about his atheism. His view of life
was very unorthodox for the period, a very unconventional sort of life. He was murdered relatively
early, or else he would have been a serious Shakespeare's rival. He was at the the University of
Wit, also part of Admiral's Men. His best known plays are Tamburlaine the Great , The Jew of
Malta and especially The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus one of the
9

most intensely dramatic plays in the English literature.

Marlowe: one major line of influence for Shakespeare; another one was Thomas Kyd (revenge
tragedy).
Jacobean period
a darker mood set in (because of the slow rise of puritans). Many of Shakespeare's
contemporaries produced plays which showed this change in mood.
Thomas Middleton, John Webster, Thomas Dekker, Cyril Tourneur, John
Ford: dark
tragedies concerned with evil
Ford wrote a tragedy which was quite popular: Tis a Pity She's a Whore
Francis Beaumont: also dark, revenge tragedies
theatre moved indoors
King James especially like masques. In order to flatter the king, Ben Jonson wrote several
masques to be performed for the kind; this did not contribute to his fame. Masque is a form
which had been used in France, a lot of music and dance involved in the performance,
entertaining, a lot of spectacle.

RESPONSES
1. Ben Jonson: Shakespeare's contemporary (Every Man in His Humour) praised him for being
true to nature; nature an life are mirrored in his work
-> concept of mimesis - Jonson's view of art, also Shakespeare himself believed that a good play
should present a mirror to life
in comparison, 20th century critics did not look for verisimilitude in Shakespeare, but look for other
things
2. John Dryden established himself as a critic after his Shakespeare's death and after the rise of the
puritans. He was in favour of Augustan tradition. He sees Shakespeare as a pre-modern author, he
criticises him for using bombastic language, he believed that the language shouldn't be so
exuberant baroque, but more moderate, simpler, more controlled. On the other hand, he does
recognise him as one of the main British authors.
3. Dr Samuel Johnson in the 18th century edited a number of Shakespeare's plays and defended
the original reading of Shakespeare's plays and praised Shakespeare (he anticipates the preromantic movement) for creating a new type of English drama, which is close to life (mimesis
again). He was critical of Shakespeare's anachronisms.
He was very influential for the study of Shakespeare until the early 20th century: Shakespeare's
plays are so good because they feature characters which are not only individuals but they
represent a particular group, a subspecies of a man, a psychological type that people can relate to.
He sees this as something positive (today it isn't).
4. Romantic period: rediscovery of Shakespeare. He becomes a kind of a prophet who knew it all.
Coleridge saw him as a natural genius: his plays represent an organic unity of form and
content. He praised Shakespeare's spontaneity, how his characters act on emotions. He read
Shakespeare from the romantic point of view and found all the romantic elements. German
romantics were particularly taken to him, a major influence.
Drawback of this interpretation: romantics saw him not so much as a playwright but as a poet.
(poetry was the main genre then)
Charles Lamb and William Hazlitt: popularised Shakespeare, his plays and plots; they helped to
create Shakespeare as a literary icon.

10

5. Victorian period: saw in him a novelist; interpreted him through the eyes of a Victorian novelist
they're interested in his plays as far as plot, intrigue is concerned.
The emotional aspect of the characters not very important, interested in the biographical aspect of
his characters, with the narrative in his plays.
6. 20th century; A. C. Bradley contributed to the emergence of the English literature as a
scientific discipline. In his book (1904) he puts forward the character theory (very influential until
the 1960s): a very fixed interpretation of a play:
-> each Shakespeare's play revolves around one central character and his psyche. He's interested
in the inner nature: it determines his/her actions
-> a very reductive view. Is it just Hamlet's philosophy that account for everything in the play??
There might be other influences!
So, he exaggerated the importance of the main person's psyche.
Bradley's concept of character criticism is based on psychological realism. When he analyses the
plays, he says that he wants to take the reader in a close contact with Shakespeare (highly
debatable issue from today's point of view do we have the access to what he wanted to say???;
and does it even matter?)
7. Structuralism: emphasised the importance of the language
highly suspicions, dismissive of Bradley's notion of reading Shakespeare; they saw it as
conservative, reductive. They introduced the concept of the signifier and the signified, and
believed that if you are dealing with the metaphorical language, you have to go beyond the
obvious significance, you have to find what the real signified is.
They don't concentrate on one character only, they believe the real value of Shakespeare's plays lies
in in human interaction, dialogue.
They believed language has various functions and that in a text, all these function have to be
examined. It is impossible and irrelevant to know what the author had in mind -> the author and
his authority is dead; author's view is no longer the main concern: the author's view should not be
trusted, it is only one view, each reader brings his own interpretation with him;
Structuralists: L. C. Knights, Northrop Frye?, G. W. Knight
interested in language and they maintained that Shakespeare's plays are best revealed through the
language;
the structuralists anticipate all the different new 20th century works
8. Psychoanalysis and the psychoanalytic interpretation of his plays; Freud used Hamlet as an
example of Oedipus complex;
--> many new and much extended psychoanalytical interpretations, based on what he had to say in
the 1900s.
psychoanalytical approach focusses on the study of hidden traumas; they are according to Freud
of sexual nature: buried traumas that the characters aren't even aware of, but they have an
influence on their relationships
Jung, a follower of Freud: also interested in Shakespeare, took many examples from his work, but
he was more interested in symbols that revealed certain repressed sexual feelings, certain traumas,
developed in childhood and that come out later in the adult life.
Philip Armstrong brought together all these various psychoanalytic views; he published a book on
Shakespeare and psychoanalytical approach - the first;
Since that time there have been many other new psychoanalytical critics
so-called new psychoanalytical criticism
Janet Adelman: interested in the relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet; in Hamlet she
11

sees the main problem of the remarriage of Gertrude. Hamlet's jealousy ; she wrote an essay called
Suffocating Mothers;
psychoanalytical criticism is still present!!
in late 20th century: Jacques Lacau - pronounced himself as a follower and re-discoverer of Freud;
particularly interested in comparing Hamlet and Oedipus Rex; his view on the subject differed from
the Freudian view, who saw coherent and unitary ego subject; Lacau sees fractured ego, self and
this makes it even more difficult, complex to analyse; there are other dimensions to the character
than just the Oedipus complex. He also rejected the traditional psycho-analytical idea, based on
sexuality from the early childhood and how everything depends on this early development
--> Lacau believed that it is difficult to say what the normal development is, this leads to
stereotypes.
9. the theatre of the absurd; nihilism, questioning the meaning of existence
Jan Kott: 1960s published a very influential view, new interpretations; book: Shakespeare - our
contemporary (?): claims that Shakespeare's plays addresses our world better than the one in the
Elizabethan period.
His interpretations are somewhat biases, subjective, but legitimate!
--> his own experience of living in the east in a totalitarian regime, the KZ experience, => his
views = response to the post-world-war-two period; he looks in Shakespeare for relation of
power = crucial in each play;
political power, domination, violence, totalitarian regimes (MacBeth, even Hamlet)
Kott pointed out that Shakespeare isn't universal, but dependent on a political, social etc
context.
He studied the contextual dimension, the silence or mime (>elements of the theatre of absurd;
absence of words significant, gestures )
he was interested in the emotional effect that each play has on an audience
tries to find the elements that show the essential absurdity of the world - whatever you do, the
situation doesn't change much; resignation with the world, life
1970s: new movements - feminism and deconstruction
10. Deconstruction: derived from structuralism and post-structuralism, introduced by Jacques
Derrida: Of Grammatology; Can the words, the text of the plays describe the real world, the
reality?
-->He believes reality it is an illusion, because art can enable you to grasp the reality better,
intuition works through art, not ration; words are just the beginning and through intuition can lead
the reader to the reality
believed that texts are never finished, never concluded, never accurate; there's the constant free
play > all authority, even those of the critics needs to be challenged and work reinvented
they were very much in favour of intertextuality.
metaphorical language can't accurately depict a particular character/situation; each play is
characterised by reduced possibility or readability; reduced access - you can only intuitively hint at
the meaning
11. Feminist interpretation: plays interpreted from the women's point of view, they concentrate on
the females
Lisa Jardine, Catherine Belsey.
Are women characters more important sometimes than the male characters?
MacBeth: they challenged the established view; the exchange of gender roles; how Lady
Macbeth takes on the male role, how she unsexes herself to have an influence on her husband and
the society; her husband in turn takes on a more female role => The power depends on gender.
Feminism completely changed the view on most of Shakespeare's plays
12

Belsey and Jardine look for the patriarch; patriarchal patron

father:daughter relationships; destructive for Desdemona; also patriarchy that exists in a
marriage
the gendered subject
this is essentially a political reading because it's all about the power in the society
this political reading also introduced

12. Cultural materialism - the next stage of approach; emerged early 1980s in England
--> Political Shakespeare: brings in this new approach by two authors: Sinfield and Dollimore:
Historical context undermines... allows us to recover its histories.. imminent criticism.. reproduce
in its own term.... cultural materialism.
interested in power-relations according to 3 things: class, gender and race; relation
between the power and resistance;
Shakespeare's plays radically reinterpreted
studying the historical context; when it is produced, when it is written..
--> against this transcendent, universal value; each play is formed in
the historical
context!
should be interpreted and studied according to the ideology according to which they are
produced
--> study of the reception of Shakespeare from the transcultural
point of view:
how it is staged in different countries is important
-> meaning of each play is constructed in a particular culture in a particular time.
cultural materialism proposes subversive or dissident reading : subversive in the sense
that traditional, conservative views were deliberately challenged different, shocking;
reader's subversive reading can emerge on the stage
stressed the importance of self-reflexivity. it encourages to be constantly self-reflective, to
be critical of their own work. there must be a constant dialogue between the critic and the
work; interpretation changes throughout someone's life
one of the central things is difference or differences: the stress should no only be put on the
dominant character, but also on the minor characters who also contribute to the final effect
applying this political, cultural materialist reading challenges the cultural authority of an
author
- Shakespeare should not be taken as the greatest author per se, a universal humanist, not as an
absolute literary, cultural authority; he should be re-examined, reread constantly
for the first time: attention to the functioning of his plays NOW, in the present moment, how the
meaning is produced, constructed. Class, gender and race should contribute to our reading
this approach has helped to shape the way in which literature, drama makes sense for itself;
becomes self-reflexive;
literature has become read/staged, has entered in an interaction with history, historical context
they also believe that literary plays do not belong to the past, the actively contribute to the
present (that's why they have to be re-examined)
in the late 1980s emerged a sequence of books (3 so far): Alternative Shakespeares: collection of
essays, many contributors; Terence Hawkes one of the editors, also John Drakatis
new interpretations concentrate on the actual moment in which the plays were produced during
Shakespeare's life, what it meant then and what it means today, situating the play in its historical
context.

13

13. Semiotic approach, based on semiotics with mostly people from Bologna - Umberto Eco, K.
Elam, Serpieri
a critic should study how meaning is generated in a particular society at a particular time. We
have to study the process of signification and communication through the media: the
construction of Shakespeare through the modern media
studied other media, even mass media
dedicated to the research of non-verbal semiotic systems: the use of props, which are very scarce,
the use of sound effects, costumes, make-up, gestures; to them all of this represents a sign
every dramatic text is ultimately impossible to understand and control: when it is put on stage it
has its own life
This cultural materialism, which emerged in England, gave birth to many other more recent approaches

14. new historicism: an American movement, but very much the same, stressing the historical
context for the construction of a play; Stephen Greenblatt
new historicist believed that Shakespeare's plays enable this subversive reading: subversive in terms
of politics, history, economy; different from the established, conventional views
15. post-colonial reading of Shakespeare
emerged in the late 1980s, also a result of this changed paradigm
from the post-colonial point of view, Shakespeare's plays can be read in terms of expansion and
the emergence of the British empire; this is a political reading, a political interpretation of
Shakespeare
traces the question of colonialism, race, subordination
Post-colonial Shakespeares by A. Loomba and M. Orkin: Shakespeare as a myth, institution,
represents the colonialist ideology
Such critiques have shown how Anglo-American literary scholarship of the last two centuries offered a Shakespeare
who celebrated the superiority of the 'civilized races', and, further, that colonial educationalists and administrators
used this Shakespeare to reinforce cultural and racial hierarchies. Shakespeare was made to perform such
ideological work both by interpreting his play in highly conservative way (so that they were seen as endorsing existing
racial, gender and other hierarchies, never as questioning or destabilizing them) and by constructing him as one of the
best, if not 'the best', writer in the whole world. He became, during the colonial period, the quintessence of
Englishness and a measure of humanity itself. Thus the meanings of Shakespeare's plays were both derived from and
used to establish colonial authority.

The post-colonial view tried to destabilize certain views; stress put on the concept of hybridity and
subalternity
hybridity: mixture, encounter of the 2 culture, the colonizer and the colonized; a hybrid identity,
experience is forged in this spaces of contact.
Subalternity: the voice, the dominance of the voice who is given the voice? The colonizer or the
colonized = subaltern silent, not given the same power of voice; Shakespeare gave more and
more voice to the subaltern the older he became.
- The Tempest typically analysed, one of Shakespeares last plays;
the expansion has achieved some point, he was different than in his youth
the problem of expansion and colonialism = the main topic of this play. It is about the new
world, about Western people, represented by Prospero, who are stranded on a Caribbean island,
shipwrecked, where they encounter the natives of the island, with Caliban representing the
indigenous population of the island. Prospero represents the arrival of the white men. Caliban
is only partly given the voice, a limited voice.
Critics believe that Shakespeare wanted to show Caliban as an uncivilized creature, but Shakespeare
is very subtle in depicting the character, he relativizes the colonizer and the colonized;

14

He wanted to show to his Elizabethan audience what to expect in a new world:

wanted to show the discrepancy, duality between what they expected to find and what they
actually did; contrast between the expectation and the reality.
The expectation was based on the material conception of what to find in the new countries, they
wanted to find material profit, like gold.
This was in contrast with the utopian conception of the new world
utopian: they believed that in these countries - like America as the virgin land Virginia - they
would find the Eden on Earth
edenic, utopian conception of the lands, like Arcadia, close to nature, where everything is
open + also the material profit
In reality, they struggled, many died; they must expect suffering, problems!!
wanted to show not to have utopian, idealist, nave views about colonialism, an exploit which is
bound to end in a disaster, failure = shipwreck
This utopian fantasy has a mystical, mythological aspect of the imperial expansion; he warns
against building these myths
The play itself begins with a shipwreck => a symbol of the ultimate defeat of the colonial
exploit; they see it as a kind of warning; the adventure may not end positively. They would have to
leave eventually, Caliban claims the island for himself.
The Tempest is now really interpreted in these terms, there is no other way to do it. It addressed the
conflicts and the contradictions of the early 17th century colonial discourse. He deliberately wanted
to show this double nature, the material and mythological.
This play can be/is read within the historical context, not like having some universal values, but
as being the result of a specific context (cultural materialism!!)
19. A few more recent approaches:
Alternative Shakespeares, volume 3: cultural materialism & psycho-analytical reinvented
eco criticism - plants and animals in the plays, what they mean
blue Shakespeare: refers to the presence of water, e.g. the sea; connects people, lands, also divides
new factualism(s): a biographical interpretation of Shakespeare's plays; concentrate on facts from
his life that explain his plays; lost years - he was maybe in France because he was actually a Roman
Catholic
He lived in the time of major social changes, he is always fully involved, engages with these issues,
contemporary issues of his time. As a good writer, if he wanted to get away he does this in a very
subtle, artistic way. Every drama is supposed to open eyes, it is not to be didactic. No direct
answers, instigations to the changes. Art is not a political programme, it should always open
various possibilities, minds.
All these new approaches have one thing in common:

Shakespeare is a myth, an institution, his plays have to be reread and deconstructed (from this various points of view); this has been the main
contribution of these movements.

15

Global Shakespeare:
Globally, on the one hand seen as an author with whom people can identify regardless of their
culture and historical moment. This is true, but these issues are not universal, they work
differently in each society. There is this international appeal for Shakespeare which also coincided
with the rise of the British empire and the English language.
Was he an instrument of the internationalization of the English language and the British
empire ??
Germany: the first who embraced him, the romantics saw him as their peer, somebody who was
able to put in drama all the dilemmas they were concerned with. To this day, Shakespeare is
extremely popular in Germany.
France: discovered by Voltaire, who read him and saw his plays performed when he was in
England, he saw this revolutionary, subversive content. The French romanticism fully rediscovered
Shakespeare and hailed him as a major author.
Tsarist Russia: Shakespeare was produced quite frequently throughout the 18th and 19th century, he
was translated, admired by people like Pushkin.
Spain: set alongside their foremost author Cervantes; fully embraced from the early 19th century
onwards
Italy: was not immediately welcomed his frequent treatment of Italian history and morality
depicted as negative. Shakespeare became popular in the late 19th century, but through the opera
because there are people like Verdi who made him and his plots popular.
In the non-western countries, like northern Africa, Egypt, Near and Middle East, Shakespeare was
translated and adapted to the context only in the 20th century; between the wars and after;
the Arab speaking world; his play were translated, the names of the characters are changes,
there is no verse left in these translation, all prose, often songs are added as a form of a
entertainment, a form of relief for the audience; particularly interested in plays that deal with Arab
characters and places, like Othello or Anthony and Cleopatra. He was appropriated for the Arab
world. In the more contemporary time, new translation of Shakespeare were sponsored by
UNESCO
- he became more commonly staged and popular in the Arabspeaking world; there is a legend that
perhaps Shakespeare himself was an Arab
- they wanted to appropriate him, make him their own
India: became popular very quickly through the British empire;
he was a part of the canon; during the Raj, his play were often performed; usually in English, but
also translated and performed in other Indian languages. They use dance, song, Indian costumes,
also political context of a particular play is changes, Indian. MacBeth: not Scotland, but Indian
environment
Japan: adapted to appeal to the Japanese audiences, from the late 19th century onward; mostly
interested in the violence, cruelty of his revenge tragedies than the comedies. They staged him in
accordance with Kabuki theatre tradition; also western-style stagings.
Film adaptations of Shakespeare: many films, he was made a popular icon through film. Film
version were often mirroring the current situation, usually political situation of the country in
which the film was shot. In America, in the period between the two wars - the films anticipated,
mirrored the rise of fascism and the anticipation of war; the same true of the period after the war
with the rise of the curtain several films made and they mirrored this political situation, soviet
16

rule.
In Africa, right after the second world war, he was shown as an example of the dictatorship,
which has to be stifled in the bud.
In films since the 1970s, a lot of stress has been put on gender, gender switching, criticism of
patriarchal values.
In Stratford-upon-Avon, there is a Royal Shakespeare Company, which is safeguarding the
legacy of his plays; you can go see his plays constantly.
Of course, he is performed a lot around the country.
Very strong centre in Canada, where they have his summer festivals, it has a major influence. Set in
Ontario in a town called Stratford.
Finally, we can say that Shakespeare's plays have found an important expression in music:
opera, Prokofiev's ballet Romeo and Juliet, Benjamin Britain wrote a Midsummer Night's Dream
opera; also an opera of Romeo & Juliet
Shakespeare has been made into musicals as well Bernstein's West-Side Story = modern
adaptation of Romeo and Juliet
Many contemporary stagings of Hamlet in the context of a New York businessman, or Romeo
and Juliet in the context of LA gang fights.
contemporary version of Hamlet: the context remains historical
Laurence Olivier a famous British actor produced on stage and for the film many of
Shakespeare's plays, usually cast as the main character. He contributed greatly to the popularity of
Shakespeare.
Another director and actor: Orson Welles: very fond of Shakespeare and produced his plays for the
film and helped made him an icon.
Famous film version is the film by the Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, based on MacBeth
revenge, violence was popular
Shakespeare in Love: mixture of elements from the Elizabethan era, not based on actual data;
provides a kind of insight in the period, although it's fictional.
Shakespeare remains this international bard, celebrity.

THEORY OF DRAMA
Drama:
1. the main text = dialogues: the fictitious direct speech of the characters
2. the side texts, the instruction to the director, how it should be performed.
synthetic drama: more or less everything is developed on stage: we see all the motifs, background
analytical drama: the audience only guess; we get insights into some of the larger events that have
happened before

Aristotle

a great admirer of Sophocles and his plays (Oedipus the King)

he wanted to write down some rules for a good tragedy

17

 the first major author of the theory of drama = Poetics

Aristotle's Poetics:

the main feature of drama= actions, active people doing something on stage - not
something which takes place in their mind
stresses the physical movement and action that has to take place; if there is none, he
believes it cannot be successful.
Aristotle himself does NOT speak about the three unities (action, time and place); there
is however and indication that it is best for a tragedy that it takes place in a single action, in
a compact time and place;
Shakespeare sticks to this, but not always very strictly (French classicist theatre very strict)
interested in the causality of the action causes and effects; and on the plot (not the
same as story); the plot examines the causes and effects; story = a more chronologically
defined narrative
the protagonists should be high-born, should come from a higher social level; in this way,
their downfall because of a tragic fault is more effective
domestic relationships are better suited to a tragedy because in a family, this relationships
are played out in a much more intense way
Tragedy is "an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude;
in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament... in the form of drama, not of
narrative, through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions
(catharsis)."
complete = causes and effects that can be seen by the audience; stylistically beautiful,
not an everyday kind of speech. it needs to have a cathartic effect!
interested in the imitation of the real life, of an action= mimesis tragedy dramatises more
what may happen not what actually happens
the law of probability and necessity; also the dilemmas that go on in the characters
mind
tragedy is rooted in the fundamental order of the universe
> all about causes and effects
because of this cause and relationship, tragedy arouses not only pity (because they die,
because they don't see something clearly) but also fear (the audience can project themselves
in this cause and effect relationship; it could happen to them!)
the plot is the way in which incidence/events are presented to the audience, it pertains to
the very structure of a play
- it is important how the events are presented; the plot must be complete in itself, which
means that has a beginning, a middle and an end = intrigue, climax and the catastrophe or
resolution of what had happened before in the play.
there should be no outside intervention in presenting the plot, no deus ex machina;
a play should have a very close-knit structure; the plot should be linked together very
closely by the internal necessity = the events should not be supernatural, improbable,
should be linked by this necessity/plausability and each of this events leads to the next
against episodic plays episodic structure the episodes are loosely bound;
against the use of coincidence doesn't go together with the cause and effect law; if used
has to be plausible!!!
Shakespeare uses coincidence - people have no power over their lives in this particular
event; Romeo and Juliet is said to be a tragedy but many believe that it is not a typical
tragedy simply because of the frequent use of coincidence; where is the tragic mistake then?
Coincidence even contributed to the end
18

the author should keep the depiction of the irrational side of man to the minimum,
because the irrational is hard to explain in terms of cause and effect; this elements of the
irrational, of being made up
the plot has to be serious and of a certain magnitude;
the seriousness = the plot can have a universal significance, it deals with a certain topic
which people can relate to, can identify with
plots should not be too brief and over-extensive we have to understand it, have time to
connect
peripeteia: the reversal of intention (of the main character); an important part of the plot
they add to the tension and in the interest of the tragedy
anagnorisis means the recognition of the main character, connected with the resolution
and the catastrophe; he is made to see; what he has done wrong and didn't notice before;
if there is no recognition on the part of the tragic hero before his downfall, the tragedy isn't
very effective because the character doesn't come to terms with what has happened. The
recognition helps the audience to see what the character has done wrong
the character: secondary only to the plot; nonetheless, it is important because the audience
feels pity for the tragic hero/heroine
> a tragic error flaw in their character = hamartia;
this flaw can be many things: their inability to see and understand the situation, to see the
people around themselves as who they really are, their ambition, over-sensitive and overphilosophising nature which makes them inactive; he calles this flaw.
the main protagonists brings about his/her own downfall, mostly because he does not see
things and people for what they are, not because he is so evil or sinful often a reference
to blindness, also physical (people are blind and made blind); the concept of seeing and not
seeing.
tragic irony the main protagonist usually takes a series of actions which turn out to be
self-destructive, but he does it in blindness causes his downfall. He is in the end made
to see, he gains at least some knowledge of what has been wrong.
Shakespeare very good at this, he uses madness is it real or feigned? We do not know
what they really know, to what extend they see and hide their knowledge.
characters have to be consistent, true to themselves and also be true to life people have
to believe that they are probable; if we do not believe in them then there is no question
about the cause and effect BUT: true to life, but made more beautiful: language, more
perfect, nobler; the tragedy has to be removed from the everyday, banal life.
the use of Chorus (that Shakespeare does not specifically uses, though we see some
resemblances with certain groups of people) should be fully integrated to the play: it is able
to distance itself from the action, it can bring in a certain atmosphere, it can echo an
certain idea, it can comment on the action, in contributes to the unifying effect of the plot.
the use of spectacle: the devices used, the stage machinery: he believes that spectacle,
visual effect can add to the impact of the play, to the pity and fear - but these effects
belong more to the ingenuity of the stage machinery, the operator of it;
Good tragedy does not require a lot of spectacle, the inner struggles are much more
important and effective that what people see: author is able to show his/her dilemmas, how
this plays out in relations to other people
the audience should derive some sort of aesthetic pleasure mostly achieved through the
contemplation of pity and fear at the end, before and during the catastrophe the purging
of emotions takes place = catharsis
characters should not be shown as too good or too bad, they should be somewhere in
between because this is how people are.
interested in the right and wrong of the decisions taken by the protagonists in crucial
moments, the question of guilt, the moral and the ethical the tragic character guilty
19

because of his poor judgement

19th century:

drama became the object of theoretical research (especially in Germany);

Gustaf Freytag: started to see drama not just as a dialogue, but also as simply using
poetry the poetic aspect of drama
3 categories: lyrical, epic and dramatic works
the dramatic genre was to show a conflict, either between the character and the environment
or the conflict within a particular character and his dilemmas. This is the so-called conflict
doctrine, which started to predominate.
the so-called theatrical illusion to break it or not to break it?? is there a dividing line
between reality and fiction?
Some authors like Szondy believed in drama in the absolute: the audience should
intervene in the action by making remarks, joining the actors, to break this illusion;
From the renaissance period onwards, the tradition was against this interaction; stage as
mirroring nature but not nature
Gustaf Freytag: showed Aristotle's principle graphically in 1863 drew the triangle
showing the development of the tragedy: from the intrigue, the conflict all the way up to
the climax turning point takes place;
in some cases of Shakespeare, we have more than just one climax; after the turning point,
there is the downfall action or denouement or untying of the know; in tragedy, it all ends
with a catastrophe, physical annihilation; catharsis was achieved through the catastrophe.

1970s: semiotic approach

explicitly interested in the tension between the text and the production of text on stage;
how this text, meaning is constructed, how it is produced, staged
=> synchronic reception of the text = in the moment of reception
mimesis not important any longer
everything examined from the point of view of the ruling discourse, which is largely
dependent on the ruling ideology
> a particular ruling discourse in a certain point in time defines and constructs the
meaning of a particular play in a particular time in a particular culture; they are
interested in how the staging of a particular play undermines/disrupts the ruling discourse
for the 1st time- focus on the specific social conditions of a particular time/place
semioticians see the language as a sign, a system of signs, which signify something and it
has to be put in a particular context and analysed from the contextual point of view;
a language articulates repressive social law

20

OTHELLO
Basics:
domestic tragedy: Othello and Desdemona (his wife) are set against the larger background
of the Venetian republic and its expansion
It takes place in Venice and Cyprus
Othello = the tragic character who commits a tragic error = his is blind because people
lie to him. The result of his tragic acts is his flaw in his character, but this flaw is socially
constructed: His problem is that his is very susceptible to things people around him tell
him, believes people too readily misjudgement of characters = fatal mistake; he accepts
these views simply because of his circumstances he is the outsider, that makes him
prone to believe just anything because he feels so insecure he is of a different race, was
a Muslim, converted, Venetians don't trust him; all this makes him vulnerable.
Othello is frequently referred to as the Moor; his ethnic origin is more important than his
personality; he is an outsider, of a different race but has converted into Christianity
not using his name => he is still an outsider, not on equal footing to
them. Of course he
is also important, they need him for the army.
Othello is one of Shakespeare's great tragedies
topics: the examination of race, jealousy, the traditional view of marriage
Quotes
Murder's out of tune and sweet revenge grows harsh. - it is about revenge but it is not a
revenge tragedy, at least not a typical one; it is all about his jealousy which was constructed
in his mind through instigations of Iago.
It is the very core of the moon: she comes more near the earth than she was wont and
makes men mad. he refers to the fact that even the nature is dislocated, out of order disorders in nature/natural phenomena reflect the disorder in the world of man => if
moon comes nearer the earth than it should it makes men different, mad; they do something
that they wouldn't otherwise.
This also present in Julius Caesar animals behave strangely = anticipation of Caesar's
murder
It is the cause. Yet I'll not shed her blood; nor scar that whiter skin of hers than snow, and
smooth as monumental alabaster. Yet she must die, else she'll betray more men -he loves
her, she is so beautiful, angelic, but his rage is too big
later, Emilia is appalled at finding her mistress dead, she compares her to an angel and
Othello to a devil (he was negative, committed crime, also because he is black; black vs.
white, evil vs. good) All the more angel she and you the blacker devil.
She's like a liar, gone to burning hell: 'Twas I that kill'd her. -Othello argues that he had to
do it
at the very end, he sees he was wrong and kills himself = takes responsibility for his fatal mistake =
misjudgement of Desdemona and Iago's character.
Othello (written 1602-1603) works on two levels: on the social level: Venice, Venetian situation
and struggle with the Turks, also on the domestic level marriage.
It is a very highly concentrated play; no digressions, no sub-plot, practically no humour
(otherwise he liked to use humour to relieve tension and to create the contrast between the
gruesome situation and humour)
21

Othello is of Arabic origin, he is the noble Moor, full of pride and self-idealization. He is a very
successful general in the employ of the Venetian republic who needs him because of his military
prowess
the character of Iago = one of the problems, he is the schemer and villain of the play, at all costs
trying to harm and hurt Othello for no obvious reasons (several possible reasons for his hate and
schemes hinted). He manipulates several people: Othello, Roderigo
Coleridge: this play is not particularly successful because the motives for Iago's evilness are not
clear, they are weak. He saw Iago as a stock, flat character, somebody who is just too negative >
not very true to life because of this
Roderigo is the rejecter suitor of Desdemona, he is hopelessly in love with her and would do
anything; he becomes a pawn in the hands of Iago who also gets money from him because
Roderigo sells everything to be able to get married to Desdemona, but then this plan fails; in a
word, he uses him to scheme against Othello and Cassio
Cassio lieutenant to Othello, he has an important military post; Iago hates Cassio because he was
promoted over Iago and uses him against Othello (this was one of the possibilities for his scheming)
Three great ones of the city, in personal suit to make me his lieutenant, off-capp'd to him: and,
by the faith of man, I know my price, I am worth no worse a place. - here we can suspect that this
jealousy is one of the important reasons for his scheming, and this is Act 1 scene 1!!
Cassio was promoted over Iago, he is the good character who is a contrast to Iago.
Desdemona - the unfortunate one (the original meaning); the daughter of the Venetian senator
Brabantio, comes from a very wealthy and politically influential family, there is a lot of stress put
on the responsibility of Desdemona as a daughter to her family = obedience to her father, whom
she betrays, she elopes with Othello, without her father's consent; Othello is respected but the
family didn't expect her to marry him because he's black later on the domestic level - she seems to
be disloyal, unfaithful, disobedient to her husband. At the very beginning of the play,
Desdemona's father warns Othello against his own daughter; She deceived her father and she may
thee. - feeling of suspicion planted in Othello's mind.
Emila: an important minor character in the play, Iago's wife, lady-in-waiting to Desdemona; in
order to regain the intention of her husband who doesn't seem too interested about her, she steals
the handkerchief which creates the whole scheme (handkerchief supposedly proves to Othello that
Desdemona is unfaithful to Othello with Cassio); in the end, she reveals the story to the public, she
is punished for that by her own husband who then kills her
Cassio and Desdemona's relationship is not quite clear at the beginning; she did try to plead for
Cassio's reinstatement (Cassio lost it because of a drunken incident, he was involved in a brawl and
Othello takes off his rank as an example); Desdemona speaks to Othello and wants him to reinstate
him, she has some sympathy for Cassio, but Othello misinterprets this as a sign of their affair
Bianca mistress of Cassio, a courtesan
Othello is based on an earlier version, on Giraldi Cinthio: Gli Hecatommithi - a collection;
Giraldi had used the character of Othello some 70 years prior to Shakespeare. There is the same
driving force the question of jealousy, on the domestic and social level (=Iago jealous of Othello
and Cassio; Othello is a Moor and so respected, he has Desdemona)
Shakespeare took this original source and made it even more tight in terms of structure.
Shakespeare manipulates the time, there is a dual time scheme used short time scheme, short
time span which refers to the action shown on stage in an unbroken sequence of events, taking
place in a couple of days; we get the feeling that things move too quickly towards the climax
22

because all the events; from the arrival to Cyprus to Othello's death: 2 days, very compressed
The long time span the happening before the play, this helps us understand the compressed
events in these two days.
It was suggested that maybe Shakespeare had a model for Othello, supposedly the Moorish,
Moroccan ambassador to Queen Elizabeth just before the play was written.
in the time of Queen Elizabeth, the political links between England and Morocco were very
strong there were negotiations taking place for a treaty between England and Morocco to join
forces against the Catholic Spain = a threat and hindrance to England. The English were
successful at doing that, they defeated the Spanish armada in 1588 and they wanted to ensure this
lasting supremacy (with joining forces); for some reason, this never materialised
etymology of the name Iago or Jago (a form of James) - an important patron saint of Spain SantIago; supposedly the Spanish army had a vision of this saint before a battle with Moors; there is also
the expression Sant-Iago Matamoros Santiago the Moor-Slayer, Iago acts as the symbolical
Moor-Slayer
The structure of the play heightens the tragic an ominous mood of the play; on the one hand we
have this young, innocent, perfectly good character of Desdemona who is referred to as an angel
(white, innocence, goodness, purity, naivete) - donna angelicata, the angelic woman; she is the
perfect contrast to the Moor, the black devil. There is this dichotomy black vs. white, angel vs
devil, female vs. male; Christian, religious, she constantly makes references to the Bible vs.
converted Christian but still suspicious.
Othello, who is prone to Iago's scheming because of his insecurities, becomes a villain himself, he
is increasingly described in terms of diabolic images.
Jealousy is one of the topics - social and domestic
Some critics suggested that Iago himself is in love with Desdemona and maybe this is why he holds
the grudge.
There are differences between the traditional and modern interpretations;
traditionally: - a tragedy of character; the main protagonist is very
passionate exaggerated jealousy; manipulated into committing murder of his wife.
- Iago was blamed for the tragedy of Othello, he is the source of all evil; now: the blame is
put on Othello as well; is seen as a destructive character because of his blindness
A lot of characters show racist attitude to him Iago, Cassio, Venetian gentlemen, we can clearly
say that in some ways, he is discriminated against and this is what Shakespeare wanted the
Elizabethans to see It's not just Othello's fault, he isn't negative in himself, it's also the social
position that contributes to the tragic outcome. The discrimination makes him prone to scheming.
He starts from the stereotype but then he gradually de-constructs this image.
we have to bear in mind that Shakespeare made several character of a different race: Othello the
Moor, the Jew, Titus Andronicus all of a different race and all represented as villains ( =
stereotype de-constructs)
Othello is also seen as an exotic person, somebody interesting Shakespeare clearly challenged
the Elizabethan stereotypical view. There are suggestion that Desdemona may have fallen in love
with him because he was so exotic.
There is in Othello the question of interracial sexuality probably a shock amongst the
Elizabethan audiences, but this was intentional; his idea was to speak to Elizabethan audience
about race, about the social construction of race; how people of different race are not given the
23

same opportunity
The more recent criticism also emphasises that Iago's reason for deep-set hatred may have been in
his jealousy of Othello's sexuality; there are so many imagees used that link Othello with
animalistic sexuality, as he were an animal; referred to as a horse, a ram; he refers to Othello and
Desdemona making love as a beast with two backs.
This play is no longer seen as a domestic tragedy now. It is seen in a broader social context;
Shakespeare shrewdly took Venice and its empire - parallel to the expanding British empire; he did
something similar with Julius Caesar the successor of an empire (Queen Elizabeth dying without
an heir)
Venice is show as a relatively open state, even multicultural; on the other hand also as a state that
is in reality a lot of prejudice present; the same true in The Merchant of Venice - Jewish ghetto.
The moor was needed but was put in an isolation. They accept him because they need him, because
he can lead the army so well.
the Venetian society, Christian and orderly as it seems to be, it is also shown as a barbaric
society because metaphorically the play shows despite its proclaimed tolerance, the kind of love
between Othello and Desdemona is not possible in these circumstances; their love is defeated, it
cannot succeed, even if publicly proclaimed as ok. Desdemona and Othello went against social
conventions.
Some critics suggest that this tragedy contains the impossibility of such love, that it contains a lot of
'subversive imagination potential': Shakespeare was able and wanted to dramatise the possibility
of the truly emancipated relationship between the two genders but social inequality made it
impossible.
He wanted to show that their love was subversive, legitimate but not able to flourish; he wanted
to show that such a relationship ought to be possible, that we have to accept it and make it
possible; he goes beyond the stereotypical depiction of race and ethnic origin.
Modern criticism also says that context is very important; Othello does not live in a social
vacuum, he is discriminated against, it can't be just a domestic tragedy some proneness to be
jealous; they speak about the social construction of this downfall, but he also brought it about
himself; BOTH are important.
Who does the audience identify with??
Shakespeare was able to create a collision of two sets of values, you can basically feel with two
different characters this is very effective; white values and the values of the other; the audience is
confronted with this and does not know with whom to identify; the audience is caught in an
ideological trap it makes the audience think, changes their views, behaviour.
The audience starts to identify with Othello that gradually becomes the villain, although Iago is the
real one.
At some point, Iago says I am not who I am - he basically expresses doubt of his own ego,
identity; he remains an enigmatic figure to the end
FILM: black and white colour and association of positive with white and negative with dark is
used in the very effective vision of sex - you cant do this in text;
Shakespeare wanted to undermine the stereotypical concept of goodness and villainy connected to
brightness and darkness, also in terms of time of the day.
Issue of the institution of marriage, of the domestic life
If Venetian husband cheats on his wife, he is not judged very harshly. This is all the anticipation of a
catastrophe and as far as the position of gender is concerned in the marriage. For men, adultery is
24

sport, for women it is something serious and punishable.

The more recent view of Othello's jealousy (Alternative Shakespeares) :
the tragedy of Othello is the result of Othellos imprisonment within the male version of
marital jealousy and the structure of domination and possession within the institution of
marriage. Shakespeare balanced the situation by presenting the womens points of view. This
aspect of the institution of marriage has been disregarded for a long time.
One of the critics says that one of Othellos fatal mistakes is that he stays faithful to the presiding
sexual ideology. He acts out of his obedience to the norms of the patriarchal Venetian society. He
is an active participant in his own tragic downfall. Many tragic events occur as the result of
obedience (people cant see through the norms of society). He does commit some fatal mistake but
he achieves in the end the recognition of his mistakes. He was manipulated by the Venetian
republic and society because he was always an outsider.
Another tragic error is that right in the end of the play he sees himself as a victim. He realises that
he is changed person and he thinks differently of his role in society.
His inability to judge people is not universal, but must contextualised and the result of a
particular society in a particular time. He tries to fit into the wild world, he has converted, but in
his mind he still knows he is an outsider. This is what makes him prone to jealousy and Iagos
scheaming. There is something similar in The Merchant of Venice.
One of the critics: Othello as a negative model of diabolic connection with a devil,
Machiavellian stereotype of a man in power
- The Elizabethans: negative self-definition
He is ambivalent person- issue with identifying with him.
His death echoes British supremacy (defeat of the Spanish fleet)
In the Shakespeares usage of language is a lot of reference to heaven and hell and the verb save
double reference.
He is Christian, but not trusted by Venetians.
Angelica = a woman villain, distillation of villainy, the evil of Desdemona is maybe not so
effective, within the play its complex
Another problem: he imagines he can judge people for what they really are (as did King Lear).
He is guilty of rational prejudices (his mind can understand everything but himself)
- Why does Desdemona fall in love with him? another issue
She is drawn to his physical and sexual attraction which is certainly seen. Or he may present a
substitute for her father (Venetian system is based on female obedience; she wants to be obedient
wife).
Without order in a marriage, Othellos life goes into chaos. Desdemona betrays her father and
triggers off a chaos on the domestic and social level. (Compare to Romeo and Juliet)
Shakespeare also wants to show that such pure, perfect love cannot exist in this world essential
absurdity of this world.
At first he didnt want to kill her for her beauty, but then the question obedience (betrayal).
He speaks on behalf of all men the mission for a better order. He also uses religious language
when talking to her. He thinks that this order was cause by the disorder in the nature influences. He
kills himself in the end.
25

Forth act, second scene- they meet and he doesnt recognize her.

26

JULIUS CAESAR
Julius Caesar is a historical character a history or a history play; also a tragedy and
one of Shakespeare's Roman plays - they were very popular during his lifetime
probably first performed 1599; it just precedes Hamlet, his great tragedy, which may have
been first produced in 1600s
the source - an earlier work: the English translation by Sir Thomas North of Plutarch: The
Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans
Shakespeare took the source of the actual life of Caesar but he changed the significance of
this source, namely, one view held that Brutus and the conspirators against Caesar were
simply ruthless murderers, assassins, people who unjustly killed Caesar
the other view was that the conspirator's goal was legitimate
because Caesar was
threatening Rome with his imperial ambition and his
assassination can be seen as a deposition
of a tyrant - a just cause
Shakespeare was shrewd enough to present both of the views in a balanced way
he does not take sides, just shows the two views as having a certain justification.
There is the essential ambiguity in this play as far as the political motivation of the
characters is concerned.
For the Elizabethan time, Julius Caesar was an important character because Caesar would be
an emperor; he was a sovereign, a king and there was an immediate parallel between
Caesar and the king/queen of England. There is a question of a very ruthless,
totalitarian king; what if the sovereign becomes like that? Do the people have the right
to depose the king that would be bad for them, too totalitarian or not?
easier to speak about history than current events!!
important issue for the Elizabethan society: an earlier example,
were very aware
of it: from the Venetian republic in the 14th century one
of the doges Marino Faliero, who had
this idea of becoming the Venetian emperor/king was not accepted, publicly executed to
show that the republican order and democracy has to be
preserved; Caesar is
publicly executed too; he is stabbed for everybody to see that republicanism should win
This play, as most of his Roman and history plays, examine an individual historical
person in relation to a particular political system. It is different from his other plays,
where they dont confront the natural order
his Roman, history plays are very political, not philosophical
critics have suggested than maybe they are more limited in terms of scope and less
effective than his 'great plays', more narrow and less convincing; this play and other
Roman/history plays lack the total vision of the chaos at the end, the sense of evil (Lear,
Hamlet): this is not present in Julius Caesar. In this case, things are very clear, not
enigmatic: just a clash of two ideologies, two political system
some critics also suggest that Shakespeare concentrated too much on the private issue(s)
of these characters, like ambition, political influence (not just Caesar; Marcus Brutus, Marc
Anthony) too private, privately motivated, not large as the great tragedies are
a political play; we cannot say this for Hamlet, at least not exclusively; this one shows the
clash of two values: the imperial, totalitarian concept which Julius Caesar represents and
on the other hand there is the republican value - for the future of Rome - that the
conspirators stand for in Julius Caesar
Marcus Brutus: the real tragic figure? Doesn't join the conspirator right away; he fears
that Caesar's imperial ideas, ambition may destroy the Roman republic; he joins the
conspirators because he firmly believes that he is doing something good for Rome,
whereas some of the other conspirators are motivated also by their own personal gain,

27

personal political wish for a climb.

Cassius: defeated in the first battle of Philippi, commits suicide because he mistakenly
believes that Brutus had been defeated
Brutus at the end looses the battle and commits suicide
the values they stand for are defeated
Marcus Brutus: a tragic hero because he has high ideals, very nave but not very
realistic
this naivete makes him vulnerable as a politician; he shows his
naivete when he
lets Marc Anthony speak at the funeral of Julius
Caesar although Cassius warns him
against it because he isn't so nave and he sees the power of people, the mob; in his famous speech
Marc Anthony changes the outcome of events and is able to change
the public
opinion of the conspirators; the citizens of Rome turn
against Marcus Brutus and against
conspirators
the concept of the mob, the group of citizens is very important; an unruly, disorganised
group
Marcus Brutus causes his own downfall because he was not able to see; it was a bad
judgement of character; he wasn't able to foresee certain things
the triumvirate the three consuls who rule Rome after Caesar: Marc Anthony, Lepidus
and Octavius Caesar
CHARACTERS: Marc Anthony and Marcus Brutus are the main characters
Julius Caesar: a famous conqueror, wants to become an emperor although Marc Anthony denies
this in his speech; he is assassinated by the conspirators; later on, his spirit haunts Brutus at the
battle of Philippi > he comes to take revenge upon Marcus Brutus
Calphurnia: Caesar's wife who has a bad feeling about the future and has nightmares seeing her
husband murdered, assassinated; she urges Caesar not to go to the Capitol hill where he is indeed
assassinated.
Like in several of his other plays, he shows how nature (mostly animals) starts to behave in an
unnatural wave before the assassination takes place: disorder in nature anticipates something
bad in the world of men, as a premonition
Sooth sayer appears: somebody who can see the future and he warns Caesar twice about the
possible assassination, tells him not to go
Portia: Brutus' wife, she takes her own life upon hearing about the death of Brutus
The myth of Caesar's death has been discussed in several ways;
right after the World War 2 in the 1950s with the emergence of the iron curtain Jan Kott
he sees Julius Caesar as a political play where totalitarianism is fighting the
democratic, republican ideal makes it contemporary
the film version, from the late or early 1950s: a black & white film by J. Mankiewicz
staged this play as a metaphor of the rising totalitarian regime in the pre-world-war-two
era.
in America, there were the infamous McCarthy hearings (he was very much against
communism, wanted to find leftist intellectuals in the US; some of the stagings of this play
drew parallels with the so-called McCarthy witch-hunts of the commies, reds?
28

The main theme: the republican issue/democracy vs tyranny

Marc Anthony: remains faithful to Caesar and his idea; he is a very shrewd character and a
shrewd politician: able to manipulate the crowd; he is also a good orator he can speak well;
the funeral speech which turns the outcome of events is a good example of demagogy; he is able to
appeal to the emotions of people, it's not a question of rational thinking but appealing to
emotions without offering any rational proof or evidence; He often uses rhetorical questions,
repetitions, gradations: he is able to speak to the simple mob, simple people, he is very
intelligent
On the other hand, Marcus Brutus is also a good orator, good public speaker
Shakespeare deliberately shows this split between the nave but successful politician Marcus
Brutus and this more successful, shrew, manipulative politician that is represented by Marc
Anthony; he wants to keep his status in the Roman society
A couple of years ago, when it was showed in Slovenia, he was shown as a contemporary
businessman who wants to succeed regardlessly; he doesn't care about politics, he would align
himself with anyone to keep his status, keep earning money; Shakespeare wanted to show him
as such, also as being partly driven by his own ambition
The question of the private and public values:
Marcus Brutus clearly represents the public values (he think that he acts on the behalf of Rome);
Marc Anthony stands for private values
The question of idealism and reality/shrewdness;
Marcus Brutus the typical idealist, nave; this is defeated in the political sense; here Marc
Anthony represents the person who is clearly rational and can manipulate the two concept
contrasted
The topic of ritual sacrificial ritual:
several events are structured as a ceremonial sacrificial ritual; the very assassination is shown
and structured as a form of sacrifice; Caesar as the scapegoat which is sacrificed for the common
good;
a great deal of theatricality; how the mantle of Ceacer is examined, how his corpse is
presented to the people and examined, washing hands:
Marcus Brutus orders his conspirators to do this so it wouldn't be a private thing but a public event
that was needed, they are like high priests of Rome
Symbolism has often been used in stagings, especially colour symbolism; when there is violence,
bloodshed, (a lot of physical violence in Julius Caesar) red light would completely fill the stage
the audience would be shocked by this colour, colour of violence, blood, energy, death, strong
emotions
Some critics have also suggested that the washing of hands may show the fact that they felt guilty
after the assassination
Images of fire and storm used: storm is the disorder in nature which anticipated the disorder in
the world of men; the fire shows destruction but also a sort of purification something new will
emerge from the ashes.
Marcus Brutus: some critics have suggested that he is the real protagonist and he possesses not
29

only naivete but also excessive pride (hubris) that he is just so full of himself, self-important;
this makes him vulnerable, unable to judge the situation. He is so full of himself he believes he
can control the future of Rome. Not only he is proud, he is arrogant for believing that and this
causes his downfall, the catastrophe result of his inability to realise the consequences of his
actions
Cassius: an arrogant, ambitious politician, very much self-motivated; it has been suggested that
his support of republicanism is feigned
Cassius is a little bit like Iago; villainous but you can't explain why; a Machiavellian figure
because he pulls the strings
Macchiavellianism was something that the Elizabethan audience would be familiar with > the
qualities of a politician, public figure who uses all the means possible to attain the goal
Marc Anthony: also a Machiavellian figure negative connotation scheming to achieve such
goals.
He remains loyal to Caesar. He is deliberately shown as ambiguous and as a successful politician
who wants revenge for Caesar.
He is very pragmatic (pragmatism does not necessarily have a negative connotation) he makes
the most out of a situation, he tries to bend it to his own advantage
Marcus Brutus, Cassius and Marc Anthony are linked together by ambition (for various
reasons) in varying degrees
Today the play is seen as complex and ambiguous this was introduced by Shakespeare
intentionally; he wanted it to be like that; complex, open to interpretation
He wanted to show (we can speculate) the limitation of human understanding of people, events,
historical truths, politics; the idea of sheer impossibility to be completely fair and know the
absolute truth
we do not know much about the background; also the difficulty or downright impossibility of
defining absolute historical truths. Even when Shakespeare shows this famous event from the
history, we have to get all the possible backgrounds and judge the historical truths in a balanced
way; It's hard, we don't have all the truths but we can try
We, the citizens, the mob should not act on the spur of the moment, rashly, we should think
before we leap
The speech
repetitions (cunningly used); gradually changes the opinion of the people; the scene takes place in
a forum; Marcus Brutus has just finished his own speech explaining the reasons for killing Julius
Caesar, decide to give time to explain himself to Marc Anthony a big mistake
First citizen, Second citizen: the mob: how the citizens are named
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

>first lie
The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones: So let it be with Caesar.

> we tend to remember the bad things, good are forgotten - a perversion, usually is the other way
around
The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious: if it were so, it was a grievous fault; and grievously
hath Caesar answer'd it.

> refers to the speech Brutus made;if indeed it were so, he paid for it
30

Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,-- for Brutus is an honourable man; so are they all, all honourable
men,-- Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me: but Brutus says he
was ambitious; and Brutus is an honourable man.

> flatters Brutus; says they are all honourable; the fact that he repeats it so often comes to signify
dishonourable rather than honourable
He hath brought many captives home to Rome, whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar
seem ambitious?

>lots of rhetorical questions: Is it ambitious to be successful? If this is negative, then what??

When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus
says he was ambitious; and Brutus is an honourable man.

>Caesar felt with the needy, the poor (wept exaggerates, wants to emotionally impact very
effective); there is no substance in this ambition, something more solid should be there
You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse: was
this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; and, sure, he is an honourable man.

>he says I offered him the crown, but he did not accept him. Rhetorical question: not ambition;
the word honourble has already lost the meaning
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, but here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love him
once,--not without cause: what cause withholds you, then, to mourn for him?

> If you were happy with him as the leader, general, what makes you stop loving him? Why did you
forget all this things about him??
-- O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason!

> everybody has lost their reason, the judgement of people has fled to brutish beasts they can't
judge, like animals
--Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, and I must pause till it come back to me.

> a very emotional statement; like he's dead himself, his heart is dead
The mob is emotionally taken by this; one of the citizens shouts out (the first evidence of the
change of the opinion of the mob)
FIRST CITIZEN. Methinks there is much reason in his sayings.
SECOND CITIZEN. If thou consider rightly of the matter, Caesar has had great wrong.

> if you are right, he was wronged, unjustly punished

Anthony does not end there:
But yesterday the word of Caesar might have stood against the world: now lies he there, and none so poor to
do him reverence. O masters, if I were disposed to stir your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage, I should do
Brutus wrong and Cassius wrong, who, you all know, are honourable men:

> I don't want to raise mutiny against them because they are honourable
I will not do them wrong; I rather choose to wrong the dead, to wrong myself, and you, than I will wrong
such honourable men. But here's a parchment with the seal of Caesar,-- I found it in his closet,--'tis his will:
Let but the commons hear this testament,-- Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read,...

> he shows the testament, he says he does not want to read it, they demand that he read it
Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it; it is not meet you know how Caesar loved you. You are not
wood, you are not stones, but men; and, being men, hearing the will of Caesar, it will inflame you, it will
make you mad. 'Tis good you know not that you are his heirs; for if you should, O, what would come of it!

> be prepared for it because it is something good for all the Romans
31

2 crises: in the second act there is the first crises, when Brutus decides to join the conspirators,
the second is the speech delivered by Brutus, soliloquy, when character broods upon his dilemma,
he also addresses people around him (the conspirators). He says he wants the crown, but Marc
Anthony says the opposite.
It's not very common that a tragedy has a double climax; this one does.
Video: Brutus speaks to the crowd and changes their opinions. In these two speeches Marc Anthony
is very theatrical: he uses the body mimics, he speaks aloud, and he is emotional...

32

HAMLET
1st act:
the appearance of the ghost protagonists are presented (Hamlet)
He decides to take revenge on his father.
We are introduced into the special relationship between mother and Hamlet. Hamlet is
jealous of his mother because she married hastily
he compares his father to Hyperion and Claudius to a satire which makes her so sexually
dependant on him.
Hamlet himself from Freudian perspective may be jealous of his mother, sexually and
physically.
Already at the beginning (2. scene, 1. act) Hamlet is baffled, appalled at his mother's
incestuous inconstancy because he sees her as the archetype of woman. He exclaims
Frailty, thy name is woman!, referring not just to his own mother but to all women
misogyny, disappointment with women.
This marriage was considered incestuous by Elizabethan standards.
2nd act:
The plot develops and we are introduced to the Danish court as a court full of spying
missions.
There is Polonius, who is the councillor to the king and he tries to devise spying missions,
including his daughter Ophelia because he wants to get to the bottom of Hamlet's
supposed madness, feigned or not.
Nobody is sure about his madness and there are quite a few instances when Hamlet's
madness shows great wit and intelligence. Polonius says there is a method in Hamlet's
madness, which means that this madness may well be feigned.
Hamlet hesitates about his role as the avenger, wants to get the final proof, evidence of
his uncle's guilt.
He invites players to perform at the court play within a play, The Murder Of Gonzago
which is very similar to the poisoning of this father; he hopes to be able to see Claudius
react very emotionally to this play.
3rd act:
We learn more about Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia his abominable, increasingly
violent behaviour towards her; he suspect her of spying for her father.
the nunnery scene: Hamlet advises Ophelia to go to the monastery and become a nun to
preserve her innocence, her purity and also not to give birth to any more people he is
so disappointed with the human race, including his formerly beloved Ophelia. If more
people are born into this world => more evil.
The other thing is that the nunnery in the Elizabethan colloquial usage also meant a
brothel, so that also means he tells her to go to a brothel where she also won't have children.
The nunnery scene immediately follows the famous soliloquy to be or not to be;
essentially show his dilemmas, his philosophical thinking, his wavering whether on not to
go on living or to simply kill himself.
There is also the performance of The Murder of Gonzago = essential part. Hamlet looks at
Claudius' reaction and becomes certain of his guilt.
Claudius is now sure Hamlet knows and he embarks on his villainous project of arranging
a journey for Hamlet to go to England, accompanied by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
33

where he should be killed; in the end, Rosenkrant and Guildenstern are killed.
This climax ends with the closet scene which takes place in the intimate quarters where
Hamlet blames his mother for marrying Claudius; he tries to frighten her,
> many interpretations of this scene: shows the relationship between the mother and the
son; it is suggested (in most cases) that this is the Oedipal complex that hasn't been
completely resolved and he is still very much physically attracted to his mother
the closet scene from Laurence Olivier's film - really stresses this Freudian interpretation
and this erotic, physical interpretation between Hamlet and his mother; they roll on the bed
as if making love, kiss in a very sexual way
Polonius eavesdropped behind the arras (=a thick curtain)in this room. Hamlet is aware
of that, he stabs though the arras and kills Polonius. This is very important: end of the 3rd
act, the first death, corpse.
=> Hamlet has decided, this death triggers all the other deaths, it is a turning point. This act
also triggers the revenge of Laertes
In a recent staging of this closet scene in London, they used a very bright red heavy
curtain; when Polonius dies he is covered in the red curtain, like covered in blood - very
effective.
4th act
Rosenkrantz and Guldenstern have been killed and Hamlet is coming back
very much concentrated on Ophelia whose senses are failing her: her father had been
killed, she had been abandoned by Hamlet who told her to go to the nunnery She's very
frail.
she gives away different flowers to different people, she is still aware of the flowers and
their meaning, they show what she thinks of each person
Ophelia's death by water
When her brother Laertes learns of her death and drowning, he is consumed by revenge
and he is easily manipulated by Claudius to participate in a match with poisoned blades
which should finally kill Hamlet.
5th Act:
The final act brings the resolution; the untying of the knot, denouement. We see the final
resolution and catastrophe.
Hamlet returns, learns about Ophelia's death, meets the grave-diggers - death and
shotness of life are important themes in the play!
The grave-diggers also show Hamlet the scull of Yorrick, who Hamlet once knew and likes,
it makes him think on the topic of life and death.
=> Scenes like this define Hamlet as the death bringer, he is too occupied by the thoughts of
mortality.
These scenes also represent the humorous relief, the way they talk about the bones is a
contrast to the seriousness of the topic.
Hamlet is course struck and utterly disappointed when he finds out that the grave theyre
digging is for his beloved. He argues with her brother.
This brings us to the final conclusion, the main protagonists die.
Fortinbras (a Norwegian) is shown as the only appropriate successor to the Danish
throne, the society was week
A lot of focus on the rottenness (something is rotten in the state of Denmark). King Claudius is
shown as being rotten and if the King is rotten, according the the medieval and renaissance belief
this extended to the rest of the kingdom. In some productions, Claudius is shown as a kind of a
34

totalitarian ruler.
From the outside, Denmark is not seen very positively: a place of corruption, rottenness,
promiscuity, drunkenness, spying and manipulation.
Hamlet and Laertes who are students are aware of this image. This is also why he is so sceptical,
he know there are spies around. He is not just the insider, also outsider he lived abroad. To him,
Denmark is an ambiguous place.
Hamlet calls everything in doubt he is the typical renaissance philosopher. He suspects
everybody of everything, even his own mother. He suspects Ophelia, he is ready to give her up.
He thought of her as being innocent, true to him but as some point he is so disappointed and
distrustful of everybody that she doesnt trust her any more. Ophelia as this voluptuous woman
who is just pretending to be innocent to get to him. In Ljubljana, a few years ago, Ophelia was
portrayed like Marilyn Monroe.
Hamlet is not a typical avenger of the revenge tragedy because he hesitates. (The typical one
would be to carry out ones duty.) Shakespeare challenges this view that revenge is a duty. It
usually destroys the avenger and the people around him.
Hamlet the philosopher, the doubter: he questions life and the mysteriousness of it and
mortality. He doesn't take his own life because he is not sure what awaits a person after death, he
does not want to take any risks. How can we know? It may be even worse than this life.
C. S. Lewis wrote an essay on Hamlet which he titled Hamlet The Prince of the Poem: Hamlet
the play is concerned with death and it's actually an extended poem concerned with death and
melancholy. Lewis says that the very appearance of the ghost sets the atmosphere of the play, it
is a dead person and speaks to people who are alive. Hamlet believes this ghost, this appearance
of this person. Lewis says the world of the living is dependant on the world of the dead. To be
or not to be is Hamlet's meditation on death, it echoes the experience he might have when he
dies. He also says that Hamlet has this view that he believes in futility of all human endeavour;
whatever we do in this life we can't change anything. At some point Lewis says that Hamlet
exclaims what a piece of work is a man = what is a man, person? He has intellect but life is short
so it is to no avail. Hamlet says we are dust and words.
The graveyard scene: this is for him the evidence that Hamlet the character is a philosopher that
meditates on death and this is more important than his relationships.
We can say that Hamlet suffers because he is passive, he doest know what to do and there are no
answers to his major questions.
he tries to withdraw within himself (in to be or not to be); in Oliviers version: the spiral
staircase a sign of a withdrawal, of meditation. But he doesn't find the answers, he still suffers.
He feels that even if he does kill Claudius this would be to no avail, it would not solve anything,
he still won't get any answers to his questions another reason why he hesitates. He is split
between suffering, the present state and evasion (killing himself). He feels it is better to endure
and suffer but not because of some moral or religious reason, he's afraid of what might
happen.
Hamlet says: I am too much in the sun.
> he's too much of a son for Claudius; the sun cans see everything
Hamlet is often disappointed with himself because of his cowardice, his inactivity. He believes
it would be better for him if he wouldn't think so much. This makes as person weak and
indecisive.
35

The question of death as a revenge also haunts Hamlet. He has several opportunities to kill
Claudius he could stab him while he's praying in the beginning. He does not do it because of
religious connotation. If he killed Claudius now, he himself would be punished later on.
He exclaimed at some point (the ultimate self-rejected) that it would be better if he had never
been born; people like him are crawling between heaven of earth; rejection and
disappointment with himself. He is disgusted with himself and mankind. This makes him
exclaim and tell Ophelia to go to the nunnery and not have children. Go to the nunnery and you
will not be able to give birth to sinners.
Topic: Why does Hamlet delay, waver in taking his revenge?
Two approaches:
1st group:
focusses on Hamlet's mind, his philosophical nature; they see the inner reasons for
Hamlet's wavering or delay => internal reasons
They see Hamlet as a person of great moral integrity who is forced to commit an act of
murder against his own principles. The result is he does not carry out this task that was
forced upon him numerous meditations, constant dilemmas.
Another aspect of his inner struggle is that he becomes disappointed with life and this is
why he has no desire, will to carry out the revenge. Also, he is disappointed with the
mother, Ophelia, his schoolmates. The only person he is never disappointed with is
Horatio, he trusts him, confides in him until the very end. Horatio is the one who puts him
to rest in the end.
The Freudian and Lacanian views concentrated on Hamlet's disappointment with his
mother; because he was not able to secure her for himself because he sees her as a sexual
object. Another reason for his loathing the world.
On the other hand, some critics have suggested Hamlet is disappointed because he did not
get the throne. He was the Prince, the heir. This marriage prevented him from taking the
throne
2nd group:
emphasize Hamlet's difficulty in seeing the difference between appearance and reality.
Appearance of the ghost: he constantly questions whether the ghost is actually his father
and whether he is to be trusted, is it a benevolent or villainous spirit, tempting him into
this murder
the external reasons that prevent Hamlet from taking his revenge: king Claudius does not
seem to be a villain and a murderer, he is diplomatic, a good administrator, he seems to
be very competent, he is very kind to Hamlet. He calls Hamlet our son, our kin. Hamlet
can't believe he is like that. The only negative experience he has with Claudius is this hasty
marriage with Gertrude. He wants additional proof.
Another external reason is that Claudius is constantly protected by guards. The only time
that Claudius is more vulnerable is in this praying scene. He is by himself, he is shown as
having some sort of bad conscience. Hamlet doesn't want to send Claudius' soul to
heaven, he think it deserves to be sent to hell. The prayer scene has been described by this
group that Hamlet is unable to carry out the revenge and he is seen as the victim of
external circumstances rather than internal dilemmas.
Topic: revenge itself.
Not only Hamlet, there are other avengers: Prince Fortinbras (has a grudge against Denmark
because his father was killed) and Laertes who wants to avenge Polonius' and Ophelia's death
which was killed/affected by Hamlet. This is why he chooses to use this poisoned blade.
36

The revenge tragedy postulated that the son of the avenger should take the act and it is also
typical that this avenger, the son, should be guided by the ghost of the murdered person. The
hesitation of the avenger is also rather typical.
Also madness: the question of real and feigned madness is very important. You don't find
madness only in Hamlet but in all the typical revenge tragedies.
Of course, also a lot of murders, corpses, affecting not just the avenger and the person punished
but other people as well.
Quotes:
He learns from the ghost that he is chosen to carry out the revenge and he's not very happy about it,
he feels his whole life, his era has become perverted, disjointed; out of joint:
Let us go in together; and still your fingers on your lips, I pray. The time is out of joint:--O
cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!
> go in = back to the civilisation; The Elizabethan Era is also out of joint, things are changing fast.
He curses his fate and his life. This lines bring in the atmosphere, they are from the end from the
first act, the exit lines exit lines are always very significant. They stress the cursedness of the
period.
These lines have become a part of the world literature; they use poetic figures and thereby a
general, broader meaning is expressed through these statements; they do not pertain to Hamlet
only, but to the general situation.
At the beginning of the act: the atmosphere of spying, of control.
HAMLET .The air bites shrewdly; it is very cold.
> the reference not only physical, but also to the fact that the air is everywhere, you're not aware
of it.
So excellent a king; that was, to this, Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother, that he might
not beteem the winds of heaven visit her face too roughly.
> Hamlet compares his father to Hyperion, who represents the best qualities in men. He was one
of the Titans. King Claudius, who succeeded his father on the throne and in the queen's bed is
compared to a satire, this half-animal and half-man creature, given to lust, sexual prowess.
King Claudius: he is becoming aware that he's increasingly being exposed and losing the battle
with Hamlet:
When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions!
> changes come fast; war images often also in other plays
Hamlet speaks to the actors that he invites to play on court and find evidence; here we find a lot
about Shakespeare's view of theatre.
Hamlet is a very melancholic figure, very much concerned with death; modelled on Michel de
Montaigne
[Wikipedia]: one of the most influential writers of the French Renaissance, known for popularising the essay as a
literary genre and is popularly thought of as the father of Modern Skepticism. Montaigne would be recognized as
embodying, perhaps better than any other author of his time, the spirit of freely entertaining doubt which began to
emerge at that time. He is most famously known for his skeptical remark, 'Que sais-je?' ('What do I know?').
Remarkably modern even to readers today, Montaigne's attempt to examine the world through the lens of the only thing
he can depend on implicitlyhis own judgmentmakes him more accessible to modern readers than any other author
of the Renaissance. Since Edward Capell first made the suggestion in 1780, some scholars believe that Shakespeare
was familiar with Montaigne's essays. John Florio's translation of Montaigne's Essais became available to
Shakespeare in English in 1603. It is suggested that Montaigne's influence is especially noticeable in "Hamlet" and
"King Lear", both in language and in the skepticism present in both plays. For an example, compare Shakespeare's

37

Hamlet to Rosencrantz, at Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, about line 240, with an earlier quote of Montaigne:1. "... for there is
nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison." 2. "Whether the events in our life are good or
bad greatly depends on the way we perceive them."

Act 3 Soliloquy: an example of meditation and introspection

To be, or not to be,--that is the question:- Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?

> whether or not to take his own life; to kill yourself or to take the stoical approach, suffer
though life and endure it; slings and arrows war imagery
To die,--to sleep, no more; and by a sleep to say we end the heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
that flesh is heir to,--'tis a consummation
devoutly to be wish'd.

> to complete and end it and so avoid a thousand misfortunes

To die,--to sleep;-- To sleep! perchance to dream:--ay, there's the rub;

>that's the impediment; this makes him think and pause and decide not to take his life
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us
pause: there's the respect that makes calamity of so long life;

> if death is like sleep, you can have dreams or nightmares; shuffled off from cards; to get rid of
your body not in a natural way
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, the
pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of the
unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?

> if a person can very easily end all the problems of life (in general), who would become calm (
quietus)
you are unhappy in love, offended by the office; you can end it all with small dagger; but a
question mark on the end!
who would these fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after
death,-- the undiscover'd country, from whose bourn no traveller returns,--puzzles the will, and makes us
rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?

>It's better to grunt and sweat under this very life because we do not know what happened in the
next life
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with
the pale cast of thought; and enterprises of great pith and moment, with this regard, their currents turn
awry, and lose the name of action.--Soft you now! The fair Ophelia!--Nymph, in thy orisons be all my sins
remember'd.

> he brings in his revenge theme, his task; he is clearly referring to himself; his philosophising
has made him a coward. These lines are taken as an example of a rational man, someone who
thinks twice before acting. So is it better to think about the situation or to act irrationally and
just do it? From his point, as an avenger, this thinking isn't good. Things turned awry, they go
amiss. On the other hand, when the viewers listen to this, we ask ourselves whether he really
believes that?
Ophelia asks about the status of their relationship. She tells him that he made it clear that he felt
something for her; she expected to be married to him.
Hamlet: Ha, ha! are you honest? - Ophelia. My lord? Hamlet. Are you fair?

> the same as in Othello where he accuses Desdemona.

38

He concludes by saying that she is beautiful but she should not allow her beauty to change people
around her.
Hamlet: Ay, truly; for the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty from what it is to a bawd than
the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness: this was sometime a paradox, but now the time
gives it proof. I did love you once.
Ophelia: Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so.
Hamlet. You should not have believ'd me; for virtue cannot so inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of
it: I loved you not.

> His disgusted with the situation; because of your beauty you are also morally frail and because
of that I love you no more, he even uses past tense, denies what he just said.
Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest; but yet I
could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me: I am very proud,
revengeful, ambitious; with more offences at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to
give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and
heaven? We are arrant knaves, all; believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery. Where's your father?

>He's not only critical of people, sinners, but also of himself; Father is an important figure for
Ophelia, he made her spy. The nunnery can also mean the brothel.
Here Hamlet is accused of misogyny; and Ophelia of being morally frail this is based on his
feeling that she's spying on him
He uses a cynical, mocking tone, he teases by exaggerating thing. He show a deal of selfloathing. He asks Ophelia of the whereabouts of her father, he is haunted by the idea that he is
watched constantly
Ophelia: O, help him, you sweet heavens!

> Ophelia has this impression that he's mad because he repeats his statement: Get the to a nunnery.
Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool; for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of
them. To a nunnery, go; and quickly too. Farewell.

>He suggests she should marry a fool.

Ophelia. O, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown! The courtier's, scholar's, soldier's, eye, tongue, sword,
the expectancy and rose of the fair state, the glass of fashion and the mould of form, the observ'd of all
observers,--quite, quite down!

>She laments that this noble mind now mad. He was the prince, the heir, he was like a role-model, a
soldier, a scholar, a courtier, he was good as fencing, good at speaking the perfect renaissance
men. People followed his fashion.
The speech of Ophelia is very consistent in terms of verse; not Hamlet, not always, he's
emotional, stressed, his verse is not always consistently used.
Groups of images give a visual dimension to the play
the image of disease, infection, rottenness, corruption of body one of the most striking;
they all refer to the Danish court and are not really associated with Hamlet as a
character; despite his madness he is very sane and uncorrupted.
Images of war: there is war being waged between Hamlet and Claudius. It's struggle to
the death.

Critical reception:
39

Early, the romantic, Victorian reception:

the main topic in the play was Hamlet; his enigmatic nature, his madness (real or feigned);
Bradley and character studies Hamlet was the main focus for the critics, his problems, feelings.
In this approach he is seen as someone who has an extraordinary will-power, which is greater
than that of other, he is more intelligent than others, his feelings are very intense. The problem
of this character studies is when these critics are trying to find the flaw in his character, the fatal
mistakes, which makes him bring about his downfall. They' re not able to fully point to the flaw of
his character.
Flaw: he is too much preoccupied with the morality - that he has a certain moral duty
to perform. Because he doubts this makes him vulnerable and unsuccessful.
Flaw: he is obsessed with death and killing himself, that he actually wants to die because
he is so disappointed with life, with Denmark.
Flaw - he is a victim of excessive melancholy. Even Freud himself wrote on Hamlet and
he says that Hamlet is really a sick person and suffers from neurosis and abnormal state
of depression which makes him so melancholy.
The melancholy, dissatisfaction with life he doesn't get the throne. Hamlet had
been depressed even before the the appearance of the ghost and mother's hasty
marriage, these developments only accelerated his illness and his depression. The
ghost= representing the natural process of Hamlet's mourning. It appears at a crucial
time. Hamlet did not have sufficient time to mourn his father's death, not able to come
to terms with the changes situation in the family. => he fell into this depression. Not
only he lost his mother, he feels betrayed by his mother, Ophelia, he feels manipulated.
THEATRE:
He stresses the importance of theatre, according to him, the theatre keep the record of the time.
Good my lord, will you see the players well bestowed? Do you hear, let them be well used; for they
are the abstract and brief chronicles of the time: after your death you were better have a bad
epitaph than their ill report while you live.
His idea is to find evidence through the response of Claudius and Gertrude. The play 's the thing
wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king
According to to Shakespeare, life and theatre often get mixed, they are very much connected.
Theatre reflects life and this famous line it mirrors life to nature.
Hamlet gives advice to the players as how to act. His view is that they should exert a conscious
self-control over their speech and their manner of acting rather than being emotionally carried
away by what they play, not to exaggerate.
Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue: but if you mouth it, as
many of your players do, I had as lief the town crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with
your hand, thus, but use all gently: for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say, whirlwind of passion,
you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness.

> Should not cry out your line, your gestures shouldn't show your emotions, need to be controlled.
O, it offends me to the soul, to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very
rags

> stereotypical actors all dressed up in wigs who exaggerate; the audience doesn't not believe
them, it's not true to life and then theatre does not mirror life. Shakespeare's view was mimesis,
theatre as an imitation of life.
40

..to split the ears of the groundlings, who, for the most part, are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb
shows and noise: I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray
you avoid it.

> groundlings - people who stand just beneath the stage, they suffered, their ears suffered; capable
of dumb shows (gestures without speaking) or screaming this is not true to life. It out-herods
Herod, avoid it.
In this first address he tells them to balance; in the second part:
Be not too tame neither; but let your own discretion be your tutor: suit the action to the word, the word to the action;
with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature: for anything so overdone is from the
purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to
show virtue her own image, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. Now,
this overdone, or come tardy off, though it make the unskilful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve; the censure
of the which one must in your allowance, o'erweigh a whole theatre of others.

> purpose is mirroring, reflecting life;

O, there be players that I have seen play,--and heard others praise, and that highly,--not to speak it profanely, that,
neither having the accent of Christians, nor the gait of Christian, pagan, nor man, have so strutted and bellowed that I
have thought some of nature's journeymen had made men, and not made them well, they imitated humanity so
abominably.

>he uses word imitation; bad actors, typical Elizabethan actors, they strutted and bellowed, they
exaggerated, the failed to imitate
Line from As You Like It: Shakespeare once again discusses the relationship between art and
life; character called Jacques utters these famous lines:
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; and
one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.

> from childhood to adulthood, entrance they are born; exit death; each has many parts to play
Another example in Shakespeare's tragedy Macbeth: after hearing that Lady Macbeth has died, he
recalls his own indifference to this event. He's baffled, he's all alone. He looks back on his life and
he sees his emotional bluntness; he thinks that his life to this day (5th act) is like a bad play, he
sees himself as a bad player. This acting of his through his life was full of melodrama, bombast,
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and
then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

> that people live day by day, we think that we are important (sound and fury) but in the end it
signifies nothing, you need to exit the stage.
idiot's tale - the plot of the play; it is not rational, the one who narrates this tale ; we cannot
predict our lives, it's irrational, out of our control and eventually signifying nothing.
He is a king but still a poor player, mortal, subject to all kinds of dilemmas, he struts and frets his
hour upon the stage we feel we are very important, eternal, we are ambitious.
Actually, Macbeth as a player, he imagines that perhaps he was never destined to act and play
this role of the king after all. He is depressed and disappointed. When he says life is but a poor
play - he speaks about himself, king as a poor player; he has no control over his own life, even if
he's the king. His speech gives the feeling that maybe life, even if it is a bad play, is just an
illusion, a mere shaddow, cast by a brief candle (=shortness of ife) is it real what we see or
just an illusion?? Maybe theatre does represent life, but is is true, reality or an illusion? The
brief candle that he mentions shows that he feels that his end is close at hand, that the prospects for
him are grim.
The Sound and the Fury: is also the title Faulkner took for his novel.
41

The Freudian view -> Oedipus complex; Hamlet delays because he does not have sufficient time
for mourning. He is still in the process of grieving for his father's death, he feels betrayed by his
mother for having married Claudius so hastily, so quickly. He has a brooding nature, he is a
philosopher. He thinks a lot about himself, he is given to self-analysis and introspection and this
only adds to his suffering and his dilemmas and this is reflected through his soliloquies; every
one is a self-analysis, very subjective and like a confession, even Macbeth and Lear; Shakespeare
made it clear that these soliloquies are not always to be trusted. Some are so hypocritical that
even in their soliloquies they are lying to themselves;
When Freud wrote about Hamlet's Oedipus complex, he sees Hamlet as given to excessive
melancholy and he sees him as suffering from neurosis from this Oedipus complex; he g es on
saying that Hamlet hesitates in killing Claudius because he subconsciously identifies with his
uncle's guilt. He in a way admires him and hates him for having killed his father - because in
order to resolve the Oedipus completely, he should be the one to kill his father
(metaphorically). So Hamlet is still emotionally connected to Gertrude; he sees Claudius as a
rival. This is a very strong statement but it is widely accepted by the criticism. We have mentioned
some reasons, external and internal for his hesitation.
Characters and some more recent interpretations:
THE GHOST: sets the narrative in motion and in Shakespeare's plays, ghost and apparitions
appear frequently, even with other Renaissance playwrights; they were seen as people who came
back to this world to carry out a task that had been left undone, usually revenge; they partially
return and address a character
It's always a question of whether or not this ghost is a reality or illusion, always! You're never
quite sure are they hallucinations because of the psychic state of Hamlet's character; result of an
overheated brain? Maybe he suffers so badly emotionally. With other plays, they are considered
more as a fact. Hamlet is not sure whether this ghost is his father or whether it is an evil spirit
that is trying to lure him into killing people, he does not trust it, also because Claudius is so
competent, so kind to Hamlet, so eloquent, able to convince Hamlet that he means well to him. As
the play progresses, Hamlet is more and more convinced that Claudius is the villain, that the ghost
was right and that Claudius murdered his father. The seconds sighting of the ghost: tells him to
leave Gertrude out, that Claudius is the real culprit; Hamlet accepts this,he feels even his
mother is misled, manipulated by Claudius.
Gertrude: most critics have seen her as a manipulated person, very submissive one; more
recently we can say that she is seen as a wry intelligent person whose occasional remarks show
that she is very well aware of the situation she is in. Some critics have suggested that she lets
herself be manipulated by Claudius with order to get away from the responsibility for the
poisoning of king. Her remarks are very much to the point, she knows what's going on. The
question of surveillance, control, spying she's aware of it. In the version by Laurence Olivier we
see her as a strong character. She is strong because she accepts and admits her sin.
Ophelia, the other main character is like a symbol, somewhat exaggerated; it remains open to
what extend she was manipulated by her father. symbol of innocence, youth, chastity of
Denmark => she undergoes a change throughout the play and eventually falls down into
madness, she drowns. - relatively swift change from sanity to madness, from innocence to maybe
unpurity??
Her degeneration shows the corruption and degeneration of Denmark where all the innocent
symbols are destroyed, cannot live like this, are destroyed.
42

T. S. Eliot:
A poet that wrote about Shakespeare, mostly Hamlet - Hamlet is a case study for Eliot, can
be extended to all the other plays
He was not so much interested in the characters, but in the performance, whether it is
effective in what it has to convey;
Hamlet and its Problems: he wanted the Shakespeare criticism to move away from the
character studies; how the play works is also important, the structure etc.
He does not deny the important psychological motifs of the characters that are worth
considering, but he feels that the aesthetic value of the play is more important?
he postulated the concept of objective correlative: a way of how we express certain
emotions though certain objects, events, situations, nature, through perception of senses;
Objective correlate warrants behaviour, you can see it on stage. Hamlet is overreacting and
that's why the play is not effective because the audience does not understand it. It is
something concrete that the audience can see and identify. Often it is not here in this play;
the causes, the motifs are not there
His famous statement is that Hamlet handles too many issues and topics and thus it fails
to work aesthetically. Because these issues (from jealousy to parental obedience) don't
have the objective correlatives, they are not expressed trough actual events, objects =>
not a very successful play.

He says Hamlet's emotional responses to situations are excessive because there is not
objective correlative. For example, the character of Gertrude who is a very central
character, Gertrude is shown as good enough psychologically but not so aesthetically; as a
character, she does not work. Also Claudius: he's not very clearly evil and he's not so
sexually excessive as Hamlet sees him in his jealousy. He doesn't seem so extreme and
Hamlet's reaction overdone, there's no objective correlative.
The play is aesthetically ineffective and he asks himself, questions this Freudian attitude,
whether or not it is Oedipus complex at all, or is it something else? To him, many things
are unclear and was the first to point this out.
He is also the first critic (1919) who brings into criticism the question of gender, he talks
about male-female relations and sexuality. For that time, he speaks very openly, explicitly
of feminine sexuality. In this way, Eliot paved the way for the feminist readings of the
play.
The question of the aesthetic value is brought in; it's also important how the play
functions; if there are too many topics that do not have objective correlatives in real life,
he feels it's too loose, it does not have the right effect on the audience.
He was fascinated by Gertrude character: he says that she is made the scapegoat because
she disrupts the ideal aesthetic unity of the play. Her exuberant sexuality (regarding
Claudius and Hamlet) disrupts the play and the Hamlet criticism to his time.
Later on, from the 60s onwards, feminist interpretations would go back to this, they look
at her unrepressed sexuality it was supposed to be repressed, she can't openly express
this. Feminist criticism continues Eliot, discusses Hamlet's disgust for the sexualized
maternal body on stage. And she is THE sexual maternal body and Hamlet cannot watch
her as a mother and this sexualised woman. He has the problem of seeing her in
sexualized and desexualized way. She's aesthetically negative, excessive. Janet Adelman
is the first who wrote on these issues.

Between the two wars: G. W. Knight: wrote a book called The Real Fire and who stresses the
43

symbolism, the symbolic order of Hamlet, he stresses the structure and various images,
symbols that are used in this play, recurrently. He pays attention to various clusters of images.
Places Hamlet in relation to his dramatic environment, context; no longer just the psychology.
He read it as a poem?? it is very poetic. He is not so concerned with the question of how
aesthetically effective it is. His view was in keeping with the American new criticism, which
influenced this period profoundly and advocated the close reading and the studying of imagery.
After the second world war: the critical interest in Hamlet shifted from imagery, symbols to the
discussion of the metaphysical in Hamlet. Namely, they suggested that Hamlet the character
shows the metaphysical issues, the question, position of a human being in the universe. There
are 2 critics who see Hamlet as focusing on mysteriousness of life, man's mortality these
metaphysical questions of existence, ontological questions are the source of Hamlets anguish
Levine and Mack. Hamlet as a philosopher, preoccupied with these questions. This is a totally
different approach. Focusing on this instead on his relations. In Hamlet, the private world and and
these philosophical issues are combined, he wanted to show both, the private and the domestic
world.
We can say, however, that some of these critical interpretations are self-projections, the
projections of the critics, not the metaphysical. Critics simply applied critical schools to this play
quite frequent, this is why these critical views are so different.
The question of death; some of these critics from 50s and 60s see his depression and hesitation
as the result of his brooding, his thinking about mortality and death. Hamlet is a meditative
person of a brooding nature, not able to give answers to man's mortality; why is the life so short,
why do we die so early?? => the reason why he's so cynical, why he talks in riddles, why he
describes life in terms of images of disease, corruption of the flesh - because he's unable to answer
the ontological questions.
To the critics who see death as the central topic, Hamlet is seen as the death bringer, someone who
not only meditates on it but brings death to people around him. They believe that he is
constantly moving between the two worlds, beyond and here. He speaks with ghosts, jumps
into the grave he connects the two worlds. Becase of this feelign that he cannot answer the
queston of why life is so short, this is
Critics also say that Hamlet has this desire for power and that he is so melancholy, so depressed
because he did not get the throne after his father's death, that he is actually scheming to get to the
throne. Unlikely interpretation??
1980s: the new critical view appeared which essentially saw Hamlet as a meta-theatrical play:
they stress the theatricality of Hamlet; not other issues but simply that in this play, Shakespeare
speaks about the importance of theatre. They made a comparison between Shakespeare and
the German playwright Brecht who postulated the concept of alienation effects a certain
method in dramaturgy, which requires the actor to express the distance from what is going on on
stage and himself which brings about this alienation effect the theatrical illusion on stage and the
audience.? Because of this critical distance, because of this alienation effect, the audience would
be at all times critical and think about what's going on, not so emotionally immersed in the
play. In a way, Shakespeare was anticipating this alienation Play within a play: all of this
enables the alienation for audience.
This is only partly true: the play itself is replete with other topics and the meta-theatrical topic is
only one.
In Shakespeare's time, in the Elizabethan and Jacobean society, theatre was very important and
maybe Shakespeare wanted to remind the audience that what's going on on stage isn't real. In
order to convey this distance, distancing effect, Shakespeare used the language in a very subtle
44

way many double meanings, puns, several references language is one method used in order
to break this theatrical illusion; he created a number of subtext through the subtle, metaphorical
use of language. These subtexts also contributed to self-reflexivity of the play play being
concerned with itself, with theatre, not just with the topic but with the presentation, performance,
dramaturgy.
90's: The approach to Hamlet was more of a meta-critical: not just Hamlet as a text, performance,
that the critics examine the role of the play in the English culture, world culture, the
performances, the influence of Hamlet throughout the world, the business that came out of it.
Concentrated on Shakespeare and Hamlet criticism; if it is concentrated on the phenomenon of
Hamlet and the context, then this has to be put into historical approach part of historical
criticism, new historicism, Stephen Greenblad is part of this; he constantly stresses the
importance of context, the religious institutions... everything within a context. Characters and
topics are not studied in isolation!! When it was written, when it was produced; the current
context has to be taken into consideration. This has not been done before.
One aspect of this new critical approach is also something called performance criticism studies
the performances of Hamlet in different cultural milieus, contexts. Interested in the more
contemporary production, where we have some evidence. Here Hamlet is seen as a play with its
own separate existence and here we can mention a very well-know critic Terrence Hawkes.
The 1990s is also the time when Hawkes edited a volume of new essays, not only on Hamlet,
three volumes have come out so far: Alternative Shakespeares. What is new here? They are very
diverse; the feminist, psycho-analytical, performance, factual, green criticism. In most cases it's
Hamlet. What's new is they all have a political influence, represent a political reading of these
approaches.
The authors Elaine Showalter and Marjorie Garber take the new feminist approach with stress
on female sexuality; concentrate on Gertrude and Ophelia and they see Shakespeare as a
misogynist. A cultural construct of a feminine sexuality what kind of behaviour is expected of
them, Gertrude being a queen and Ophelia the princess-to-be. They connect this with the construct
of madness; she is pushed into as certain role as a daughter (obedience important) this brings her
into madness and essentially is this madness socially constructed, forced upon Ophelia because
of the role she finds herself in as a woman. On the other hand, Gertrude is also expected to
behave in a certain way but she doesn't always, that's what causes problems. She is also not
free to behave according to her sexuality because she's the queen and a mother.
- This is essentially a political reading its the politics of the role of women in a partical time;
synchronically and diacrhhonically: at the time when the play takes place, when he wrote it. These
authors that contributed tot the AS the see Hamlet as a site of conflicting and various contradictory
interpretations. They are not looking at Hamlet from the perspective of authority, they would claim
that it the right way, they claim that there is no single interpretation, the should all be taken into
consideration because they claim each critical interpretation of Hamlet is essential political and
ideological. Critics cannot claim that theirs is the only possible way to interpret Hamlet; only
multiplicity of critical views can produce true? Interpretation of Shakespeare. They speak of the
Institution of Shakespeare and Hamlet as his best known play is important here, which should not
be studied in isolation, but always in a context, from various points. There is also green criticism,
studying the plants, the ecological awareness of Shakespeare. New factual criticism where certain
hitherto less known aspect of Shakespeare's life are connected with the plays, especially as far as
religion is concerned Shakespeare may have been secretly catholic and that maybe during the lost
years he went to France. There was this ongoing clash between the Catholics and Protestants and in
1605 there was the Gunpowder Plot where the conspirators wanted to blow up the paliament in
London but the plot was discovered. Guy Fawkes was among the conspirators. This Gunpowder
Plot, which was a major even, some critics suggest was reflected in Macbeth. Fawkes wasn't happy
45

with the state in the country. This figure of Fawkes has been taken up by Anonymous.
Another thing in apart from the Alternative Shakespeare ----(blue ciriticicism: the sea is alike a mirror, if you travel then you see what's behind the mirror)
------> deconstrction criticism: is not something enitrely new but it essentially deals with the issue
of maddness, of construction of maddness and not only from the point fo view os sexuality, but also
maddness of Ophelia and Hamlet what is this madness wich is in a way forced upon them by
society. Why are they froced into this? The critics believe that madness in the case of Ophelia and
madness they are both children of their parents Hamlet is in the role of the son (in regard to
Getrude, ghost, his uncle) and Ophelia wants to be the obedient daughter to Polonius, they have to
behave in a certain way and they refuse to. Their madness is actually the result of the
internalisation of their parental disobedience. She's to fragile and can't cope with it whereas Hamlet
possibly just fegns madness because he has intenalised thes disobedience. They draw an analogy
between Hamlet and the actual historical situation of queen Elizabet and the Earl of Essex, one of
her lovers. Because of this, he at some point, had this mad ambition to transgress his social role and
because of that he was executed by the queen and this is seen as a kind of madness, Essex
internalised his disobediance to his queen, to his sovereign.
Hamlet was first published in a book form in 1603 and then later in other Quarto editions. The first
rinted edition was just a transcript of the original play because there was something called foul
paper and something called a fair copy. Foul paper an unauthorised version written down. Only
when the author did it an have it published it was called the fair copy, used from that time onwards
to observe. The transcript was often very different from the original performance of the play.
Hamlet was produced in Hampton? Court Palance in front of King James of Scotland confirmed
he was her successor on her death bed. This principle of the so-called two bodies of the king the
human body of the sovereign and the legally poltical body of the sovereign. Queen Elizabeth having
no children of her own, she separated the two bodies in real life. If she had children, she nominated
James. That is also, some suggest, something that Hamlet reflects. According to the principle of the
two bodies of the king, Hamlet cannot become king. An that is why h rejects Ophelia simply
because he knows that he is not going to be able to secure for Ophelia the role of the Queen and
that's why rejects her. This also emans that he's ambitious and he wants to be the king.
At the end of the play it is clear who is he heir apparent Fortinbras, the Norwegian prince; Hamlet
sees him as such - when he comes at the end and becomes the king, he usurps the power. There is
this state of emergency in Denmark, everybody died, there is no successor. He takes the opportunity
and becomes the new king and thats why tells to take away the corpses from the stage asap, so the
past is wiped out. Another thing which some critics suggest is that Hamlet, when it was performed
in front of the new king, there weer also diplomats persent from countries that were important to
england poltiically and economical; denmark, poland, spain, venice. Judging this very performance,
certain names were changed in order not to offend the diplomats. Polonius was changes the name
derived from Poland; Polonius is a silly old man made fun by hamlet.
In Slovenia, there was in the 17th century, not long after Shakespeare's death there was King Lear
produced here in Ljubljana in the jezuit college. The students performed it at this very early stage.
Hamlet has been translated by Oton upani and 1933? and it was considered a very good
translation although some scholars atttacked this translation saying that upani took to many
liberties. IN 1980s Janko Moder? And Milan Jesih is the most recent.
The view os S. Greenblad: the character of Hamlet, hesitating person, the model for Hamlet
Shakespeare had created already in the character of Brutus in Julius Caesar who also doubts and
also hesitates.
In conslusion, the American scholar Harold Bloom wrote a book called the Western Cannon. He
places Shakespeare in the centre as the first major author of the western canon, before everybody
else. He believes that what's important in Shakespeare - his play enable a person to change oneself
because he or she hears and sees him/herslef on stage through the mouthpece of these various
characters. You actually see yourself.
Shakespeare is so precious because nothing is condition by a specific culture, time and gender.
46

**** the film version by Franco Zefirelli??? ****

neki na telefonu

In MGL:
Characters like Laertes, minor characters and also Hamlet would be reduced to
puppets; a part where physical movement was important, they were tied with strings up to
the ceiling; the idea was to show that these were puppets in the hand of Claudius? Including
Hamlet!!
Then the director returned the physicality, sexuality to Ophelia; in the film we are able to
see at least at the end one aspect being sexual; in the staging much more sexual; she even
wears the notorious Marylin Monroe dress
this particular production completely omitted the religious component: no scene with
Claudius praying and Hamlet wanted to kill
Rosenkrant and Gildenstern are talked about, but never appear;
(the mouse trap, play within a play that is performed in front of the king; this mouse trap
play is directed by Hamlet, he is also one of the players and he also makes Claudius and
his mother take one of the parts; Claudius is the evil king; it is even more clear that all the
world is a stage, even for the kings and queens; hamlet is the director!!! he wants the
players to come, suggests how to play etc ??)
the mirroring effect and many mirrors were put on stage; this is the idea that theatre or
art should mirror nature, the society; one can really see oneself clearly, on the other
hand, they also enable spying. They also use big platters for food, but when they are empty
they are also like mirrors.
Ophelia's madness: she gives flowers to various people and this shows that she's not completely
mad because these flowers have symbolical meaning.
Grave-digging scene this made certain critics believe that he's the death bringer. He has a
soliloquy about fate and future.. Readiness is all - used ironically. Clearly you think you are
ready, but in reality, there is only this much you can do.
Gibson's Hamlet is much more active as Olivier's; Olivier's Hamlet has this fits of violence but
otherwise he is more passive. Gibson's Hamlet knows what to do better.
Fortinbras doesn't speak in the film; the avengers carry out their revenge; all three come together
in the final fencing scene: Hamlet, Laertes, Fortinbras; but Fortinbras is the only one who survives
and gets his way, the family that has slain his father is dead. Laertes has avenged Ophelia and
Polonius.
The fact that they all die shows that revenge simply breeds more revenge and violence, it's a
never-ending and tragic circle a powerful statement against revenge which was very much
accepted. Through Hamlet, Shakespeare does not speak about divine retribution, he just speaks
about revenge in the world of men

47

Hamlet offers many interpretations; every period can project its own things in it

48

MACBETH

a shorter play, but very compact, according to T. S. Eliot this would be effective
takes place in Scotland
Shakespeare used material from Raphael Holinshed, who some 30 years ago wrote The
Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland
one chronicle of an ancient king Macbeth and Banquo
Shakespeare most probably decided to choose this material because King James was from
Scotland for the first time he united the two kingdoms though his personal union,
although Scotland remained independent until 1707. This play was intended to flatter the
new king, he wanted to have a patron King James was interested in theatre.
It all happens in Scotland
Banquo the dynastic line though him, is in reality connected to King James.
Banquo is also a good character
By introducing the witchcraft, Shakespeare also paid tribute to James the First who
was considered to be an authority on witchcraft.
Some of the character and scenes from the play are historical; but we're talking here
early Middle Ages. He in a way revived the ancient history of Scotland, he paid
tribute to all these ancient castles and battles, more flattery to King James.
We can also say that this is a political play; full of speeches containing political
propaganda.
1605 first performance in front of the court of King James. During his late years it became
very successful as a play, performed in the Globe, Blackfriars
the focus of this play is Macbeth as the character. The political context is just the
background, not like in Julius Caesar where this is the focus;
focus on his own dilemmas and his own inner struggles and flaws. He's a tragic character
and through his flaws he causes his own downfall; primarily because of his vaulting
ambition it is not only hollow, makes him hollow, that fills a vault, tomb with corpses
(people die); it is also very big and you cannot see him from outside. In his vaulting
ambition to become the king of Scotland he is helped, coaxed by his Lady Macbeth.
At the beginning - a high character, noble, successful in his war with Norway,
appreciated by the king Duncan, who bestows the title of the Thane of Cawder and the
lands to him; a successful warrior, and through the play we see him go down and become a
tyrannical murderer; not only has he secured himself the throne, he keeps killing all the
people that are in his way.
important characters= the three witches. At the beginning, the witches predict that Macbeth
will become king of Scotland. But the witches only pronounce half-truths; it's not clear.
Macbeth, because of his vaulting ambition, believes these half-truths as if they were
real.
On the other hand, when he meets the witches for the first time, they also predict that the
sons of Banquo, who is Macbeths loyal co-warrior, will be kings as well. Banquo doesn't
pay much attention to this, but Macbeth remains alert. He had been warned by the witches
that Banquo's descendants will be kings (==> King James) and Banquo's family goes back
to the first kings (Shakespeare wanted to show that King James was related to them)
Holinshed shows Banquo in a different light, in a more negative light. Probably,
historically, this is true. Banquo took htis prophecies very seriously and was happy that his
sons will be kings, but Shakespeare makes him a good character.
According to Aristotle's theory of tragedy, the downfall of the main character, the tragic
hero, should evoke pity and fear on the part od the audience and here critics would
49

disagree whether this pity and fear is assured in the play; some critics believe that
Macbeth is constantly and inherently evil, that he doesn't change, that he has no seconds
thoughts. Others believe that Macbeth is full of doubts and needs help and is encouraged
by Lady Macbeth to commit the first murder and after this murder he's in a kind of
shock, that he's not as ruthless as it may seem, but towards the end of the play he becomes
more and more ruthless.. He does show the feelings of guilt, prickling conscience. The real
catharsis is not achieved fully in the end because he never fully repents for his deeds.

Characters:
Macbeth he is at first good, a warrior, the first murder, especially because he acted as a host!
=> unleashes, triggers of a series of more and more violent, ruthless murders. The whole
kingdom goes down, there is a lot of corruption. Other lords are not following the law; it's all very
corrupted, chaotic and evil. He is the villain, the negative person and this spreads out to the
kingdom
Banquo, this noble warrior is later killed by Macbet because he fears that his sons might become
kings and indeed, just one son of Banquo does manage to escape and his name is Fleonce this is
etymologically connected with flying, fleeing.
Lady Macbeth - coaxes Macbeth into this murder and she helps hide the evidence right after the
assassination. Lady Macbeth is very ruthless but gradually she becomes insane; but she is the
opposite of Ophelia, she is scheming. She cannot stand the murder that she helped commit, her
mind suffers from it.
King Duncan comes to Macbeth's castle and he is a good king, he has two sons who manage to flee
(Malcolm comes back in the end from England where he found refuge;)
Macduff: becomes suspicious of Macbeth and runs to England, joins forces with Malcolm, son
of the assassinated king; the problem is that Macduff leaves behind his family and children;
Macbeth becomes a ruthless killer and sends his own assassins to murder lady Macduff and the
children. When Macduff comes to England to join Malcolm, Malcolm doesn't immediately embrace
him because he suspects he might be a spy from Macbeth
Macduff encounters Macbeth In the field in the end. Macbeth feels relatively safe because of the
prophecy of the witches that nobody can kill him, except for the man who is not born of a
woman. In the final showdown, just before he kills him Macduff tells him that he was not born in a
natural way he was untimely ripped from the womb of his mother Caesarean section
Critical responses over time:
General belief: this short, complex tragedy is a study of evil, what evil can do it this world and
the corrupting influence it has. Shakespeare depiction of evil? Some have suggested that in order
to project this larger picture of evil this vaulting ambition - the play is too short and the
complexity of the evil is not well-shown. They claim that the final deaths, punishments of the
two evil characters, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are not sufficient to show that in the end the evil
is defeated and that good prevails in the world. As if evil is just defeated for a little while.
The 3 witches are interesting because by Shakespeare they were cast as humorous characters and
later on in some of the production they were cast as comedy figures, as slapstick clowns. Now,
today, they are not show like that, they are simply there to express these enigmatic statements,
prophecies, half-truths and they appeal to Macbeth's ambition. In themselves, the witches are not
50

malevolent, evil, they are just a kind of a medium to channel and express Macbeth's ambition
and consequently evil; they are a temptation of Macbeth's.
There is this belief, superstition in theatres that certain lines that the 3 weird sisters pronounce
are not to be spoken during the rehearsals but only during the production belief that it brings
bad luck. Sometimes before the performance they would refer to Macbeth as the Scottish play,
wouldn't even pronounce the name.
To this day, many interpretations of Macbeth, making it more contemporary, the drama of gangs,
modern towns also very well known cinematic version was done by in the 1950 by Akira
Kurosawa called 'The Throne of Blood' where he puts Macbeth in the Japanese environment
shows how evil and ambition can be applied to different cultural contexts different cultural
appropriations of Macbeth.
After the assassination, Macbeth says his peace of mind is ruined he says he murdered sleep;
he unleashes chaos on the whole kingdom.
Macbeth usurped the throne. In the end, order is restored after much chaos both evil
perpetrator die. However, how long will there be peace?? Jan Kott suggests that this order is only
restored for a little while, is only temporary. The ambition is always there.
TOPICS
1. the question of time
Macbeth wants to bend time and the events to his own advantage. He dislocates the passage of
time and has been described as a somebody who causes the gradual disintegration of his world,
Scotland. The evil action, the assassinations that he commits interrupt the normal flow, passage
of time.
There is the increasing feeling of guilt, especially Lady Macbeth experiences is; Macbeth is in the
beginning very unsure and doubtful in the end she is the victim of the increasing guilt.
When the critics speak about this question of time and dislocation of it, they distinguish between
two concepts of time: the chronological time and also providential time> higher order of
events, does not depend on men and natural phenomena, but higher power. Macbeth dislocates
the chronological time, he kills people, usurps the throne. Macbeth defies (by dislocating time)
the cause and effect relationship, he wants to make the prophecies come true, he kills everybody
in his way. In the log run, the providential time wins over chronological time; hierarchy and
order is re-established.
There is a very strange prophecy pronounced by the witches who say that Macbeth will remain
invincible until Birnam wood comes to Dunsimone castle seems impossible, how could the
forest come to the castle, how could it change location? In the final battle, Macbeth realises that
Malcolm's army cut the trees to camouflage themselves and it looked as if the whole forest was
moving to his castle he was then sure he was doomed, he resigns, he accept the passage of time,
the cause and effect relationship. When Malcolm is reinstated rightfully to his throne and Macduff
gets his revenge, only then this placement is ended.
This is often pointed out by the critics

51

2. gender female and male roles of the main protagonists

The gender question has often been put in question in different stagings
inversion of conventional gender characteristics/ exchange of traditional gender roles Lady
Macbeth for example in Act 1 :; she is shown as a very resolute person, that she will do everything
to help him take the throne now that she has learnt about the prophecies: she says that she will
unsex herself she will deliberately suppress all the supposed weaknesses connected with
the feminine nature in order to help Macbeth, she becomes a man because she feels this will be
more effective. She wants to be on equal footing with men and this shows that as a woman she
did not have this opportunity.
Gradually she becomes haunted by guilt and falls insane.
After Macbeth killed Duncan, he forgot the daggers in the room, so she goes back and she finishes
off the deed.
Macbeth is in shock after committing the assassination; she wants to make him strong, to bring
him back to this earth she taunts him, she challenges him, she manipulates him by
questioning his manhood. In other words, he assumes the role of a woman, certain female
characteristics are transferred to him.
There is a constant power play between the two characters and the two gender roles. When she
falls into madness, he proves his manhood in a perverted way he becomes ruthless, he
gradually dissociates himself from the humanity, from people, becomes like a machine, doesnt
feel.
Lady Macbeth is seen as an example of 'feminine malevolence' that corresponds to the masculine
fear of being dominated; she plays on this. In other words: she is in a way the projection of
Macbeth's fears that she is the man in this couple, that he is not man enough, that he is
dominated by her.
3. image patterns that are used frequently; thesee clusters of images generally symbolize evil,
violence and corruption.

The first groups of images: related to children and breast-feeding. Macbeths do not have
children, Lady Macbeth did not experience breastfeeding no natural human feelings
present in the Macbeth couple. On the other hand, we have people who have children.
the second cluster: about sickness, a lot of blood, degeneration, putrefaction. The whole
society becomes sick.
Another set: connected with sleep and sleeplessness.
Macbeth himself says that he murdered sleep
King Duncan is asleep when he's murdered you are vulnerable then
sleep = order: you sleep at night, work by day
sleep = darkness. Under the guise of darkness, bad things happen, people are murdered,
the evil can have its effect.
Macbeth and Lady can't sleep during the night, it's the inversion of qualities.
Sleeplessness, insomnia can result in madness. Lady Macbeth is haunted by the guilt.
Sleeplessness means mental disturbance and disorder.

Macbeth = an example, he symbolizes that we are all prone to be tempted by evil since we may
have a certain dormant ambition to dislocate the natural order of things (like murder, it's not
natural). With the first murder he commits, he enters a vicious circle. The idea is that Macbeth
shows the possibility that everyone can become Macbeth.
52

He is also 'a good character' by Aristotelian standard because we do see him doubt and think
about what he has done; this dilemmas that we get insight into through his soliloquies > they are
not to be fully trusted, he may be lying to himself, his dilemmas may not be very genuine.
Nature behaves unusually unnatural phenomena, especially under the guise of darkness; this
adds to the evil, mysterious character of the play. It has been suggested that since Macbeth was
able to kill the rightful king, that he was the rightful king. And then he was killed; this is to suggest
that the whole events of the human history take place as if in a nightmare; history is not
something that runs smoothly, but by leaps and bound and by murders, it's not something
chronological, natural, but very shaky.
Some of the criticism from the 1960s theatre of the absurd: they saw in Macbeth also the
depiction of the world as being essentially absurd; what can you do to influence these events?
They do dispose of him in the end but; Will this all change the human nature, course of events? It's
all in vain, absurd.
QUOTES AND STUFF
Lady Macbeth comes back the actual murder of king Duncan does not take place on stage we
only see her and him coming back from the scene. When Maceth returns from the room, he is so
much stricken with it that lady Macbeth tries to bring him back to life, he is almost mad (she is mad
at the end).
LADY MACBETH. That which hath made them drunk hath made me bold: What hath quench'd them hath given me
fire.--Hark!--Peace! It was the owl that shriek'd, the fatal bellman, which gives the stern'st good night. He is about it:
The doors are open; and the surfeited grooms do mock their charge with snores: I have drugg'd their possets that death
and nature do contend about them, whether they live or die.

> very ominous, she drugged them.

He comes back MACBETH. [Within.] Who's there?--what, ho!
LADY MACBETH. Alack! I am afraid they have awak'd, and 'tis not done: the attempt, and not the deed, confounds
us.--Hark!--I laid their daggers ready; he could not miss 'em.--Had he not resembled my father as he slept, I had
done't.--My husband! > she tells him that he's her husband, he's so out of it.

Then Macbeth describes the murder, she says: Consider it not so deeply
> she wants him to snap out of it.
These deeds must not be thought after these ways; so, it will make us mad

> she in a way anticipates her own madness, but Macbeth is 'mad' now.
MACBETH. I heard a voice cry, "Sleep no more! Macbeth does murder sleep,"--the innocent sleep; Sleep that knits up
the ravell'd sleave of care, the death of each day's life, sore labour's bath, balm of hurt minds, great nature's second
course, chief nourisher in life's feast.

>he murdered the innocent sleep that each needs after a long day.
MACBETH. Still it cried, "Sleep no more!" to all the house: "Glamis hath murder'd sleep, and therefore Cawdor shall
sleep no more,--Macbeth shall sleep no more!"
LADY MACBETH. Who was it that thus cried? Why, worthy thane, you do unbend your noble strength to think so
brainsickly of things.--Go get some water, and wash this filthy witness from your hand.-- Why did you bring these
daggers from the place? They must lie there: go carry them; and smear the sleepy grooms with blood.
MACBETH. I'll go no more: I am afraid to think what I have done; Look on't again I dare not.
LADY MACBETH. Infirm of purpose! Give me the daggers: the sleeping and the dead

53

Are but as pictures: 'tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil. If he do bleed, I'll gild the faces of the grooms
withal, for it must seem their guilt.

> dead people aren't dangerous. Then she refers to childhood; he's like a child, he shouldn't be
afraid of the devil now.
Hallucinations are often used, apparitions, ghosts; dagger floating in mid air.
MACBETH. Whence is that knocking? How is't with me, when every noise appals me? What hands are here? Ha, they
pluck out mine eyes! Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather
the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red.

>as if his hands were not his, the murder not committed by him; the whole ocean cannot wash out
the blood; it will make all the green seas become red, so big is his crime.
LADY MACBETH: My hands are of your colour, but I shame to wear a heart so white.

> her hands are also red, she helped him; it is a shame to be so innocent, you have to hife it. Her
heart is not white, pure
I hear knocking at the south entry:--retire we to our chamber. A little water clears us of this deed: How easy is it then!
Your constancy hath left you unattended.--[Knocking within.] Hark, more knocking: Get on your nightgown, lest
occasion call us and show us to be watchers:--be not lost so poorly in your thoughts.

> they go to their room; he is still not himself, Lady is afraid that somebody will see him
MACBETH. To know my deed, 'twere best not know myself. [Knocking within.] Wake Duncan with thy knocking! I
would thou couldst!

> he hopes that maybe he will wake up and he will no longer be guilty.
5th Act: the sleepwalking scene of lady Macbeth who is driven insane, the doctors see her, are
convinced of her madness. Sleep, sickness, the order of nature?
DOCTOR. A great perturbation in nature,--to receive at once the benefit of sleep, and do the effects of watching-- In
this slumbery agitation, besides her walking and other actual performances, what, at any time, have you heard her
say?

> she is sick, her natural state is turned upside down; she recieves at once the benefit of sleep and
has the effect of watching: sleepwalking, not natural
they watch her, observe her, want to see whether she's really mad.
DOCTOR. What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands.
GENTLEWOMAN. It is an accustomed action with her, to seem thus washing her hands: I have known her continue in
this a quarter of an hour.

> trying to rub out the stain of her deeds.

LADY MACBETH. Out, damned spot! out, I say!-- One; two; why, then 'tis time to do't;--Hell is murky!--Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?--Yet who
would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?

> hell is murky, expects to be sent there.

The Thane of Fife had a wife; where is she now? > referring to Macduff's wife
LADY MACBETH. Wash your hands, put on your nightgown; look not so pale:--I tell you yet again, Banquo's buried;
he cannot come out on's grave.
To bed, to bed; there's knocking at the gate: come, come, come, come, give me your hand: what's done cannot be
undone: to bed, to bed, to bed.

> she is talking to herself; there's no going back.

They conclude that she is insane event though they are not aware, why.

54

THE MERCHANT OF
VENICE

a comedy, a tragic comedy

based on a story by an Italian author, Fiorentino The Simpleton. (Il Pecorone)
The other important source is The Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe the figure of
a Jew called Shylock, in The Jew of Malta there is the Jew Barabas represents the evil
Jew, the villain, he is stereotypically cast as a very negative character, Shylock in
Shakespeare is more round, is not entirely a naturally born villain.
Shakespeare through Shylock wanted to challenge the depiction, the view of Jews in his
society.
Two worlds opposite each other: the world of Venice and Belmont from where Portia
comes.
Venice is a place of Christianity, lavishness, commerce, consumer society, profitoriented society, business ethics. Shylock the Jew is the moneylender loan sharks,
wanted very high interests on their loans; on the other hands they were made
outsiders. They were ostracised because of their religion, referred to as subhuman.
one of the Venetians calls Shylock a cur (cucek).
Belmont: an idealized image; there is justice, some sort of equality, no religious
intolerance.
issues concerning the law, how it should operate
the question of revenge. Shylock wants to take revenge upon the Venetians. He wants to
take revenge because of his own position, his own maltreatment.
The play shows how the New Testament values win in the end over the Old Testament
values; Shylock = Old Testament values = eye for an eye, retribution, merciless; New
Testament = forgiveness.
elements of tragedy, Shylock commits certain errors and is punished for them
Some critics have suggested that this play is an allegory and it represents certain qualities,
values (tolerance vs intolerance), certain concepts rather than complex, round
characters.
Anti-Semitic attitude in England was very strong; Shakespeare departed from showing
Shylock the villain but showed him in a moving, sympathetic way; he is still a villain but
through showing the injustices he has suffered he wanted to challenge, if not undermine
the anti-Semitic view in his time. Some critics believe that he managed to do that through
Shylock, some suggest that Shakespeare created a new stereotype of a Jew, the loan shark.
The play can also be seen as an allegory=> mercy triumphs over injustice, New
Testament values triumph over the Old Testament;
the first scene of act four the trial scene = the focal point of the play: Portia who is
disguised as a lawyer pleads for mercy: she tries to persuade Shylock the Jew to accept
money instead insisting on taking the flesh of the merchant Antonio; he declines to accept
money

PORTIA. Then must the Jew be merciful. SHYLOCK. On what compulsion must I? Tell me that. > why
should I give up my right, we made a contract

55

then she speaks about mercy which should be above justice.

PORTIA. The quality of mercy is not strain'd; It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place
beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it
becomes the throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, the
attribute to awe and majesty, wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; but mercy is above this sceptred
sway, it is enthroned in the hearts of kings, it is an attribute to God himself; and earthly power doth then
show likest God's when mercy seasons justice > we should always see justice, seasoned with mercy,

you cannot dissociate the two. She's trying to play on his mercy. Then she plays a legal trick on
him: remembers an old Venetian law: if he contrives against a life of a Venetian, he will be
punished; how can he take this flesh without killing Antonio??
Christian interpretation: Shylock is being discriminated against and because he loses his case, he
is forced to convert into Christianity > Shakespeare criticizes the Venetians, they ostracise him and
then he is forced to convert Christianity is criticised
The great majority of interpretations revolve around money
> that this play is essentially about money, material things (cultural materialism!!)
there are two places, 2 economic systems: Venice and Belmont that are contrasted;
- Venice being this place where bonds, debts, legal things concerning money are valid and very
strict; money-oriented society; mercantile, it's all commerce and making money
- Belmont: idealistic, everything is plentiful, Portia comes from them
If in Venice the law is money and everything connected to it, then in Belmont there are other laws;
the patriarchal law which forces the rich heiress Portia to, according to her father's wish, accept
the suitor who is going to choose the right casket;
Belmont and Portia are so rich that the father of Portia feared that somebody would marry her just
for her money; this why he devises this test with the three caskets; the paradox is that in the end
Portia gets to marry Bassanio, who is an impoverished aristocrat who may also be after her
money!!
For the Elizabethans, Venice was a place of affluence, luxury
- lending money for interest as a way of making profit was very much acceptable and was the
driving force of Venice, so much so that the money-making logic became more important than
the Christian values; VS: this almost unreal, idealistic situation in Belmont.
VS: Antonio, the merchant of Venice, shows idealism, he's not the right kind of a merchant, the
motives for taking this bond are not clear.
> He lends money to Bassanio for no interest and this was not in keeping with the business
ethics of Venice of the time; he doesn't do it for profit only, he's generous; Shylock does it
ONLY for profit
=> there is a clash of logic, ethics between Shylock and Antonio; the 2 of them who represent the
2 extreme systems, have very antithetical attitude towards money the fundamental topic
according to cultural materialists
We see that Shylock harbours hard feeling about Antonio Shylock, says this regarding taking
interest and economy:
SHYLOCK: I hate him for he is a Christian; but more for that in low simplicity he lends out money gratis,
and brings down the rate of usance here with us in Venice.

> Judaism was secondary, pushed into the ghetto-> doesn't like Christians
> he hates him more for lending money without interest, profit; in this way he ruins this logic,
mercantile economy, he does something atypical for Venice
56

> this tradition is simply going to be ruined by Antonio who is not the right kind of merchant
Antonio is a rich merchant, but at some point he goes almost bankrupt> the majority of ships went
down in storms (in the end we learn that some have survived, not bankrupt)
Bassanio is his friend and constant borrower who behaves recklessly
Portia is the heiress of Belmont
Jessica Shylock's daughter. She also has an important role; she is twice the outsider: not only is
she Jewish, but also she's a woman
Nerissa and Graziano who are the counterpart, on the lower social level of Portia and Bassanio:
Nerissa is a servant to Portia and Graziano is a friend of Bassanio.
The two unsuccessful suitors; Prince of Aragon and Prince of Morocco
Shylock the Jew is cast as a stock character by Shakespeare, which means he is shown as being
only after money, a loan shark, he's the villain, he wants to kill Antonio; but he is subject to racial
and religious discrimination which makes him act in this way
the audience does sympathize in the end, at least partly, with Shylock.
Basically, Shylock is the tragic character. He is a tragic character because he made the wrong
decision, to try to kill Antonio. Before he was discriminated against, but he was relatively high on
the social ladder; but then he looses everything a lot of his money, he has to convert, on top of
that his daughter elopes with a Christian and robs him of his money; he is abandoned and
destroyed by everybody.
very often, Shylock is not only cast as a villain an somebody discriminated against, but also as a
comic figure. This is very different according to individual directors if he's cast almost as a clown.
Shylock, when his daughter runs away and robs him of some of his belongings, it's not clear what
he regrets more, elopements of his daughter or the loss of his money. He is so very much
materialistic. He keeps repeating, he is shocked:
SALANIO:As the dog Jew did utter in the streets. 'My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter! Fled with a
Christian! O my Christian ducats! Justice! the law! my ducats and my daughter! A sealed bag, two sealed
bags of ducats, of double ducats, stol'n from me by my daughter! And jewels! two stones, two rich and
precious stones, stol'n by my daughter! Justice! find the girl! She hath the stones upon her and the ducats.'

> he cannot decide what is worse. But the money is mentioned more frequently = more
important.
Structure of the play:
1st act
the framework is established, this loan is given, the sum of 3000 ducats is given by Antonio, the
Merchant of Venice to Bassanio, he borrows this money; Bassanio goes to Belmont where he
hopes to win Portia. He has to guess the right casket.
The question remains,why does Antonio accept this stipulation by Shylock, a contract on his own
body?? This aspect has been more recently put into evidence; He is shown as a melancholy
person, he is unhappy, he may be secretly in love with Bassanio and that is why he's ready to
do just about everything for him; he knows that he will not reciprocate his love but still, he wants
to help him.
2nd act:
The suitors to Portia fail the test with the casket; the Prince of Morocco chooses the gold casket,
the Prince of Aragon chooses the silver casket which are not the right ones because they were going
after the appearance, after the surface; they place value in the quality of the material of which the
casket was made; the idea of Portia's father was not to go after Portia's worth
57

In this act, Jessica, Shylock daughter elopes with Lorenzo - Christian. She takes a lot of her
father's money and jewels. She elopes disguised as a man. Her we have again an example of crossdressing.
3rd act
Bassanio chooses the right casket made of lead, the cheapest material, he wins Portia's hand.
Nerissa and Graziano get engaged,too. Upon this, Bassanio and Portia leave for Venice.
4th act:
takes place in Venice, this is also when the trial scene takes place and the business with the bond in
resolved. Portia dresses up as a man in order to carry more weight at the court; she dresses up
as a lawyer Balthazar; she's very eloquent, at first she pleads for mercy and when this plead for
mercy does not succeed, she comes up with this ingenious plan, solution.
> gender roles, social roles where very much cemented back then, not only in Venice, in
England as well, but it is easier to speak about Venice than England.
When Shylock still insists on taking the pound of flesh which is rightfully, legally his, Portia thinks
of an old Venetian rule > anyone who conspires against the life of a Venetian, has his
properties confiscated. Shylock doesnt loose all of his belongings, only half of it because he
agrees to convert to Christianity; financially not completely destroyed; in such a society that is so
money-driven, this would be like death for him, especially because he's a Jew. The other half of
his property goes to Antonio who is rich in his own right; he decides that he will keep this money
in trust for Jessica and Lorenzo. He doesn't want to make Shylock's daughter completely destitute
some feeling of mercy shown on the part of the Venetians; Basically it all stays with Shylock
> New Testament values win despite the fact that they are so prejudiced against Shylock.
Final act
order is restores; the tensions smooth; 3 marriages; Jessica Lorenzo; Nerissa-Graziano; BassanioPortia
Another topic (not the main one according to cultural materialists):
The suitors who want to win Portia's hand and money represent in choosing the casket (made of
gold, silver and lead) not only different types of love. Princes of Morrocco and Aragon show a
shallow type of love;
All that glitters is not gold > love should not be judged by external appearance. Silver casket
Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves. > still after the value of the material.
Bassanio by choosing the lead casket, represent the kind of love (although this is paradoxical)
that has inner qualities, represent the marriage of true mind, that does not go by the external
values; the material is not important. He chooses correctly.
Antonio is not one of the suitors, he is constantly melancholy, suffering, not even interested in
taking part
=> gender based criticism: if the three suitors represent those kinds of love, then Antonio and
his secret admiration of Bassanio may represent a socially unaccepted kind of love and that is
why he keeps to himself and doesn't indulge in any kind of relationship in the play.
We can say that his is not the only socially unacceptable love; there is also the love between
Jessica and Lorenzo they have to elope in order to be accepted in the end. They go against the
social conventions, they are transgressors, rebels.
==> There has emerged in feminist criticism in Alternative Shakespeares an interpretation, a view
that Jessica, who is this rebel and a woman, that she is like the main focal point of the play. She
is for the feminist criticism a rebel not only against the Christian society, but because she's a
woman; she rebels against her father! = against the patriarchal values.
Play is full of characters who are not Venetian, who are ethnically from somewhere else and this
58

is why the play often introduces characters who speak in a different accent. This is to show the
multicultural, multi-ethnic structure of the Venetian society - like a melting pot.
Portia: very beautiful, very feminine, but also as somebody who is a transgressor, the second
woman rebel in this play. She has this amazing intellect and she is not a stereotypical beautiful
woman. She is also a bit of an outsider. She is, according to some seen as a disruptive force for
the society she finds herself in; she is very powerful because she's rich and unmarried; quite
happy to accept this casket trial because she can manipulate the casket trial because until she's not
married she's free. When she marries, she conforms!
Belmont is fiction, is purely idealistic, her world is the world of charity, forgiveness, purity,
love, there is no economic exploitation. But these qualities are also a part of her character.
Is Shakespeare presenting though Shylock an anti-Semitic view?
He starts in a stereotypical Elizabethan way -in that time there was a lot of anti-Semitism
Throughout the play, Shylock is shown as a complex, ambiguous Jewish figure, no longer a
convention, has positive and negative sides. Critics mostly agree that Shakespeare wanted to deconstruct the anti-Semitic prejudice through this character; when we think of Marlowe's Jew of
Malta, he remains the villain. Shylock and his behaviour is not the result of his malice, he is not
inherently evil; it's more socially constructed evil, malice.
Susan Bassnett (cul. m) she wrote extensively upon the significance of Shylock's revenge
taking a pound of flesh is taking revenge upon the Venetians. She claims that Shylock is not
only a character, he is a site, a place of struggle, conflicting impulses. He subverts himself, is
forced to do it because of Venetians' hypocrisy. Even before the trial scene takes place, he is forced
to subvert himself and he bleeds for an equal treatment of him.
SHYLOCK: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same
diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us,
do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

> we are humans as you are; if you wrong us like he had been wronged he would like to take
revenge.
Shylock, so S. B., believes that Venetians are simply hypocrites and that's why he decides to use
the same means they used against him the law; that's why he stick to it to the letter.
She also believes that Venice is shown as the embodiment of the emerging capitalist ethics.
She also says that Antonio, regardless of his feeling for Bassanio, embodies the sadness which is
unexplained by Shakespeare, the void, emptiness of the Venetian society. He's rich, but he's
unhappy. He's like the anti-hero. This kind of society does not bring you happiness.
(Ps by Nina: There was a staging of this play in Slovene and we were supposed to see it, but I think only 5 people or so have actually
seen it; anyway, these are the messed up notes that I've gathered from what prof. Maver and some of our colleagues said about that
particular staging. It's probably not enough if this comes up as an exam question, which it may.)

Lj Drama:
Portia and Bassanio kissing on the table, rolling up on the table and sniffing cocaine; sexually very
free; a modern staging with reference made to the modern Wall Street stock exchange.
A lot of sexual connotations during the play?
Aragon and Morroco; speak in their languages? + spectacle
shows the evil of the society where the money is very important.
Just the doors in the scene.
Shylock: captured the character? Really was Shylock
Cocaine sniffing: reference to the wall street business world; the world of lawyers; law as an
59

inextricable part of business, capitalist world. Portia, who is so good and elegant, has a different
dress in each scene, a positive character, in the end she also indulges in the cocaine.
The clown who has a very important role: got naked? A greater role than in the text.
Will see: clips from a contemporary version; Al Pacino as Shylock

THE TEMPEST
this play only takes place within 3 hours, very short time span. The three unities are very
much observed.
full of famous quotes > he wrote it at the end of his life and it is full of very mature
statements from Shakespeare about life, the society, emerging imperialism
Prospero, the conjurer, the magician is really Shakespeare in his old age who makes
statements and who at the very end of the play addresses public and says goodbye
Prospero is the quintessential Elizabethan renaissance man; he's very well read, he's not
only a magician but also a scientist. He says in the first act that my library was dukedom
large enough
> he was a duke and was deposed,his social status was taken away from him, he lost his
dukedom, but he was more interested in books.
In the end, he's still quite happy to be reinstated as a duke. So, a renaissance man; there are
many stagings where he is seen as a scientist, humanist, scholar.
There's a line which often comes up: a sea-change > refers to this major change; it's the
change of discourse, concepts, way of life, civilisation, going to Americas
Full fathom five thy father lies; of his bones are coral made; Those are pearls that were his eyes:
nothing of him that doth fade but doth suffer a sea-change into something rich and strange.
> whenever there is talk about the travel of slaves from Africa to America, it's also often that these
line, the sea-change would be brought up; > your father lies at the very bottom of this ocean and of
his bones are corals made > many people die in tempests; out of these bones something beautiful is
made; the sea-change also very much refers to this discovery of America and people trying to
settle there; This sea-change is connected of course to the expansion of the English empire, the
crossing of the ocean will result into something rich and strange; this new world has exotic appeal
and great potential. This is by far the most frequently quoted with the post-colonial
interpretation and it is the clash of the two worlds that this play shows, the clash of west and the
natives, the meeting of the so-called barbarian Caliban: name connected to cannibal
stereotypical view of the natives; Shakespeare wanted to show to aspects, to remind his
Elizabethan audiences that colonialism and its beginnings, the imperial expansion is going to be
defeated at the end unless the barbarians are taken into consideration and given some right,
otherwise it will al end in defeat and this is what The Tempest is all about > the ship crossing into
the new world is shipwrecked = metaphorical representation of the defeat of colonial ideas unless
they recognise the rights of the natives or even better, they should leave

Two views of imperial expansion:

1: material conception of this expansion
2. utopian conception
discrepancy!!!
material: profit, material sense, this would be very alluring for his Elizabethans but he also points
out that there is also this Utopian conception that there is something mythical about this
expansion that they are not always aware of, they want to find Eden, virgin land, unspoilt territory,
Arcadia, something that does not only give you material riches but also some sort of freedom,
openness of spirit
60

==> the edenic view of America

he wanted to show that this utopian expansion is going to end in disaster, like a shipwreck> he
wanted to warn his audience that they should not expect too much of colonialism and they
should behave a certain way if not they will be hated, expelled, defeated
from the post-colonial point of view it is a warning of the consequences of colonialism which
emerge much much later
Prospero is the quintessential colonialist; but not of his own accord, he's really exiled there and he
wants to come back to his own country, to his own social status. In the play, there are all these
emerging conflict of the early 17th century and beginning of the colonialism, also Shakespeare
wants to say that if the colonists like Prospero = Shakespeare = the English; if they look at the
natives as the other, almost half-human, than their adventure is going to end in a shipwreck,
unsuccessful.
So this was the sea-change
later other quotes, for example when Shakespeare writes about the feelings of the colonists on this
Caribbean island; to them, this island is interesting, exotic, magical but they can't really
understand it, as if they were in a dream. The whole play is very much swerving between
illusion and reality; Prospero is a conjurer, he can make dreams look real to people, the
framework of the play is even that the shipwreck may well be and the storm also conjured up by
Prospero himself; he devises it to get these people on the island to get revenge.
Be not afeard: the isle is full of noises, sounds, and sweet airs, that give delight, and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments will hum about mine ears; and sometimes voices,
that, if I then had wak'd after long sleep, will make me sleep again: and then, in dreaming, the
clouds methought would open and show riches ready to drop upon me; that, when I wak'd, I cried
to dream again.
> the people on the island are full of certain expectation to find material riches in this new land, but
is it true or is it just an illusion?
4th act> Shakespeare not only speaks about dreams and the concept of illusion in the colonists on
the island, but to people in general; he makes a statement about people, their lives. We are such
stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep. > he points to the fragility
and ignorance of people to know what is real and what is not. Our life is very short and we only
get to know very little!
5th act: uttered by Miranda, Prospero's daughter; these lines refer not so much to distinction between
illusion and reality, but to this new world, to America, and also to the future; she's very young
and nave, she cannot see the world and the people for what they are
O, wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new
world that has such people in't!
> she sees this great potential, goodness of colonizers, and the future of this world but this
statement is to be taken ironically, because she's so young and so nave; these lines have been taken
up quite frequently by other authors like Huxley's Brave New World.
Prospero: magician who is the rightful duke of Milan, was forced to leave his dukedom in Milan
because his brother Antonio; he usurped the throne, he deposed him a duke. But Prospero was
not very interested in worldly things, he was a scientist.
Miranda: his daughter who is with him on the island; Miranda is pure, nave person. She does not
recognise certain negative things. Her vision and her judgement are very much limited.
Caliban: also on the island, he is this barbarian, savage native or he's represented as such, half
man half animal; he's the earth, the part of the earth, island
61

Ariel: faery sprite, a non-human creature.

There are the sea-voyagers who are shipwrecked and brought to this island and this shipwreck was
magically induced by Prospero to get back at them
Alonso, king of Naples and Antonio, Prospero's brother and Duke of Milan, then Ferdinand:
Alonso's son who falls in love with Miranda.
Two lower class people:
Trinculo: a jester, likes to drink a lot
Stephano: a butler on the ship.
Act 1: we learn about the framework story, how Prospero was overthrown, how his magical powers
brought back the people he wanted to get revenge upon. On the island, Prospero has two slaves
(Prospero=the colonizer): one is Caliban, the native, the savage, he is completely dependent on
Prospero, he treats him as you would treat a slave this was Shakespeare's statement against
slavery!!! Liverpool was a centre of slavery. the other is Ariel, the sprite; he has to work for him
and only in the end he gives freedom to these two slaves. There is a witch, Caslibans' mother,
Prospero's female counterpart called Sycorax => the feminist interpretation the female
concept which was overridden by Prospero, the male magician against the female witch.
At the end of this act, when all these people are shipwrecked on the island, Ferdinand falls in love
immediately with Miranda; both are very young, naive, completely innocent; when they do
come together this shows potential for the future = the younger generation who might be better
than the older one in terms of revenge
2nd act: Ferdinand disappears; his father, Alonso believes he is dead. A lot of scheming by Antonio,
the current duke of Milan (the bad guy) who took away Prospero's throne and wants to murder
Alonso at some point, he's the villain > none of this materialises and in the end of the act, Caliban,
this half human half animal creature accepts, meets Trinculo and Stephano and he accepts them
as new masters; he is made drunk by them and this also shows the attitude of the colonizers
against the natives > making them drunk to learn the secrets, a criticism of the colonising
process; exploiting their ignorance.
Act 3: Ferdinand and Miranda get together and declare their love or each other and Prospero wants
to test the sincerity of Ferdinand's feelings for Miranda
=> the patriarchal pattern: he is protective and wants to test the suitor. It's not for Miranda to say;
Prospero is shown as a patriarch.
Act 4: P decides that they have his blessing: Ferdinand passes the tests and they can be together.
He's happy with Ferdinand and in this act we also learn a lot about Prospero's books and
interests as far as his scholarship is concerned, he is constantly into books, he can manipulate
the world because he's a magician. => if Shakespeare is Prospero, the author is also a kind of
a magician: he creates a virtual world in the theatre.
Act 5:
In the end, the two brothers Prospero and Antonio do not actually reconcile but Antonio, the
usurping villain, duke of Milan, has to give back the dukedom to Prospero and Ariel and Caliban
are no longer slaves so Prospero frees them and he leaves for Milan to resume his rightful position
and Caliban, the native, gets the island to himself. The colonisers leave and this is the only right
way, if they don't do it like that it's a disaster.
the tempest map; Algier is possibly the birthplace of Sycorax.
There was an actual shipwreck in 1609 and the people were not found; Shakespeare certainly
62

knew about this. Interesting thing about the shipwreck was that the ship and the people were never
found; very very much later a few people turned up in America and they did not remember
what had happened. The colonizers do not recall what happened; in the play this is something
Prospero devised.
Prospero: This damn'd witch Sycorax, for mischiefs manifold, and sorceries terrible to enter human hearing, from
Argier, thou know'st,was banish'd: for one thing she did they would not take her life. Is not this true?

> she was banished before Prospero

This blue-ey'd hag was hither brought with child, and here was left by the sailors. Thou, my slave, as thou report'st
thyself, wast then her servant: and, for thou wast a spirit too delicate to act her earthy and abhorr'd commands,
refusing her grand hests, she did confine thee, by help of her more potent ministers, and in her most unmitigable rage,
into a cloven pine; within which rift imprison'd, thou didst painfully remain a dozen years; within which space she died,
and left thee there, where thou didst vent thy groans as fast as mill-wheels strike. Then was this island-- save for the son
that she did litter here, a freckl'd whelp, hag-born--not honour'd with a human shape.

> she littered a son, half-human

> he speaks very strangely, is violent in a way. At some point it seems Caliban wanted to rape
Miranda.
PROSPERO. Shake it off. Come on; We'll visit Caliban my slave, who never
yields us kind answer.
MIRANDA. 'Tis a villain, sir, I do not love to look on.
PROSPERO. But as 'tis, we cannot miss him: he does make our fire, fetch in our wood; and serves in offices that profit
us.--What ho! slave! Caliban!
Thou earth, thou! Speak.

> he's the slave, he works for them, does house-chore. Prospero calls him the earth, part of the
island, very physical
CALIBAN. I must eat my dinner. This island's mine, by Sycorax my mother, which thou tak'st from me. When thou
cam'st first, thou strok'st me and made much of me; wouldst give me water with berries in't; and teach me how to
name the bigger light, and how the less, that burn by day and night: and then I lov'd thee, and show'd thee all the
qualities o' th' isle, the fresh springs, brine-pits, barren place, and fertile. Curs'd be I that did so! All the charms of
Sycorax, toads, beetles, bats, light on you! For I am all the subjects that you have, which first was mine own king; and
here you sty me in this hard rock, whiles you do keep from me the rest o' th' island.

> Caliban speaks about Prospero, when you came as a coloniser you gave me presents (alcohol),
you taught me how to speak, but it was just to get hold of me as a slave. He welcomed him, he
loved him, he showed him the treasures of the island but now he's sorry. He wants to use the
powers of his mother on Prospero, he hates him. Caliban is forced to be in the hard area while
Prospero enjoys the rest of the island.
PROSPERO. Thou most lying slave, whom stripes may move, not kindness! I have us'd thee, filth as thou art, with
human care, and lodg'd thee in mine own cell, till thou didst seek to violate the honour of my child.

> he wanted to rape Miranda

CALIBAN. Oh ho! Oh ho! Would it had been done! Thou didst prevent me; I had peopl'd else this isle with Calibans.

> I wish I had done it; but there are many other calibans that will come here
PROSPERO. Abhorred slave, which any print of goodness wilt not take, being capable of all ill! I pitied thee, took
pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour one thing or other: when thou didst not, savage, know thine own
meaning, but wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish, I endow'd thy purposes
with words that made them known: but thy vile race, though thou didst learn, had that in't which good natures could not
abide to be with; therefore wast thou deservedly confin'd into this rock, who hadst deserv'd more than a prison.

> he calls him slave: the colonizer speaking he took pity on him, taught him to speak; you
deserved the prison.
CALIBAN. You taught me language, and my profit on't is, I know how to curse: the red plague rid you, for learning me
your language!

63

> they taught him the colonizer's language but he complains it's only useful for cursing, he did not
internalise it. The English as a colonizers tool to subordinate and manipulate the natives
STEPHANO. This is some monster of the isle with four legs, who hath got, as I take it, an ague. Where the devil
should he learn our language? I will give him some relief, if it be but for that; if I can recover him and keep him tame
and get to Naples with him, he's a present for any emperor that ever trod on neat's-leather.

> he wants to use Caliban, the native, to take him back and show him to kings. He sees him as a
kind of a monster, an animal.
>Caliban says he will do no more slaving for his master. He wants to be free from the white men,
but he mistakenly takes Staphano and Trinculo for his solution as opposed to Prospero. They make
him drunk. They are like demi-gods to him.
This is a very short play, very compressed, and Shakespeare's last; a kind of a testament and he
embodied himself in Prospero. It has very many references to contemporary events; to an actual
shipwreck in the Caribbean.
The beginning of the play, the exposition, is very long: Shakespeare makes it clear that Prospero
conjured up the tempest to bring these people on the island. He moves between nature and art; if
he's Shakespeare, the dramatist, the one who pulls the strings; means that art is magic and has
great strength and can create an illusion of reality. Prospero the magician very much resembles
Shakespeare, who has this power to create the theatrical illusion. > The question of reality vs
illusion
The play can also be called a romance a very popular genre in the Elizabethan time. There were
several romances that Shakespeare created, especially in his later period: The Tempest, The
Winter's Tale, Cymbeline, The Two Noble Kingsmen, Cardenio (a lost play co-authored with
John Fletcher). Romances were popular at the time and they represent a mixture of comedy and
tragedy, very often there are young lovers who try to get together, it has a happy ending end the
couple is joined together but the very heart of this genre is tragic: the main focus is tragic: there is
loss, a lot of melancholy. It is also a mixture of a strong plot with realistic elements but also very
emotional. Characters in a romance make discoveries about themselves and other people
through action rather than philosophizing.
A special genre of the play: masque; the actors were dressed up, imaginary environment; a
masque is very close to romance and was very popular with King James. Often following the 3
unities, but it also strays away occasionally.
Costumes: gowns and cloaks were very extravagant,colourful, this made a romance very exotic.
Several miraculous events: here a shipwrecked induced by Prospero. Ariel and the 'coincidences'
when people roam the island.
There is the fantastic, melodramatic, the sentimental, the tragicomical. All of this resent in a
romance. In the end, they do end happily like comedies, but not for everybody. Those who
deserve it are punished in a way.
At the end - this reconciliation between Prospero and Alonso who is the father of Ferdinand and the
marriage seals the reconciliation; but Prospero never fully reconciles with his brother.
A lot of moving between illusion and reality; Ariel he is not real and he is visible only to
Prospero. Ariel represent air, Caliban the earth. In the end, they are both set free. There is this
constant moving between theatrical illusion and reality. The audience is deliberately taken from
one to the other > baffles the viewer.
Prospero steps out of his fictional character and addresses the audience like an epilogue; he
64

asks the audience for applause to commence the play. He begs the audience to release him just like
he released his 2 slaves. He wants to be released from the island but it also show how Shakespeare
wants his audience to keep him in good memory, to celebrate his plays in the future: he really takes
his farewell.
*movie scene
Stefano and Trinculo use alcohol to trick him, Caliban promises them that he will show them
everything > Shakespeare criticises this misuse of alcohol.

King Lear

One of his greatest tragedies

Domestic tragedy tragedy within a family (Lear & 3 daughters)
2 plots:
o Main plot: King Lear and his 3 daughters (Cordelia, Regan & Goneril)
o Subplot: The Earl of Gloucester and his two sons (legitimate Edward, illegitimate,
scheming Edmund). A parallel domestic tragedy
the question of filial love, love of sons and daughters for their parents. Two sons, legitimate Edgar
and illegitimate son Edmund. The last one has no rights and he uses scheming to get what his
half-brother is entitled to. In the sub-plot: the absence of mothers! Just the relationships between
father and children. The mother is conspicuously absent.

No unity of action 2 plots

The play has been seen as showing the grotesqueness and absurdity of a mans existence,
human condition. King Lears been seen as showing the Cartesian intellectual doubt of
existence what is the true meaning / purpose of our existence?
Answer sought in Lears exclamation Who is that can tell me who I am? no answer
rhetorical question. Incapable of getting to know the true meaning of his existence.
Stress on the violence, torture, slaughter, blinding of people, physical side of life
relationship between people even if they belong to the same family (cruelty) the play has
often been connected to the theatre of cruelty.
The two main protagonists, Lear and Gloucester, are disappointed with their children
they are exiled from their own greatness, home contemplate committing suicide (they
dont The idea is to show that nobody would care, not even God.
Important character is The Fool moves between illusion and reality, between madness and
sanity can perceive the situation rationally
Question of the lack of human freedom to what extent are we free to influence our own
fate? - Who causes the downfall, the tragedy? Lear has committed a fatal mistake which
lead to his tragic downfall.
Tragedy fatal mistake + other things
Lear wanted to get the visual, palpable utterance, evidence how much his daughters love
him. He expected the public declaration of their love. The two evil daughters are good
liars, they exaggerate in their love for Lear, whereas Cordelia is just silent, finds this task
impossible, and never tries to please her father. His downfall is caused based on this public
declaration of love, allegiance to him.
Paternal attitude
patriarchal pattern: the king and the father, he has subjects as a king and he wants the
same from his family > patriarchal relations: he mistakes the two worlds. This is what
65

brings him down and causes deaths.

Public allegiance public declaration

The play
Lear (play and character) has been interpreted as a man who's in his advanced years, and
divides his kingdom between two daughters. He's an old man who values more the
appearance (public declaration + audience) and feels that his end is near. He's got to do
something, to leave his legacy.
For a long time considered an unplayable play (due to the character Lear)
Question of the imminence of death

Lear suffers spiritually and mentally for his mistake goes through a catharsis he learns
and changes. (also the Earl of Gloucester suffers). He wants to believe in appearance,
illusion. He believes more in hypocrisy, flattery than in sincerity (Cordelia) predominant
way of communication is flattery, hypocrisy. This tells us that the main, the predominant
way of communication between people is one of flattery and if you don't know how to see
through this you are bound to be manipulated. He wants to teach through this tragedy of
Lear and Gloucester.
The Earl of Gloucester is unable to distinguish between reality and illusion. He also suffers
physically (blinded). By becoming blind he paradoxically gets to see more. He has to get
blind in order to see more through his illegitimate son. This son manipulates his father and
both Lears daughters who lust for him (hes physically attractive).

General
King Lear, the play was written in 1605 and was based on an earlier story from
Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland and like in the case of Macbeth
it is set way back in the Middle Ages; 8th century. It is believed that a certain historical
character of Lear might have lived.
Lear is also mentioned in The History of English Kings by Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Before Shakespeare, Sir Philip Sydney used the story of Lear and his daughters in his
Arcadia.
At the end of the 16th century there was a play, though it has not been preserved; called Kind
Leir. We don't know about the author, but it wasn't Shakespeare he might have taken the
source from this anonymous play.
King Lears been staged since the Elizabethan period in several ways
o Late 17th century considered as showing the disintegration of the world according
to the Christian doctrine nothing is stable in this world. (Chaos into which the postRenaissance period has plunged).
o 19th century sometimes given a happy ending.

Parental love Lear is obsessed with the idea of sin, his daughters love for him asks
them to speak out about their love, obedience, gratitude. Its his biggest mistake. He cares
about the great love for him, while Cordelia doesnt want to be a hypocrite In
consequence, Lear renounces her and divides up his kingdom between the two evil
daughters and their husbands brings competition
He retires with a group of servants, soldiers taken from him by his daughters
66

Hes practically stripped of everything very quickly. Hes stripped of his kingdom, his
group of servants, of parental attitude.
o 3rd act climax act he realizes the truth on the verge of getting mad
o 5th act most characters die, are punished the concept of good and order is
reinstated
2nd plot
The parallel plot about Gloucester who is not a king, but an important aristocrat, earl.
He also made a mistake. Gloucester he is too credulous brings his illegitimate son
Edmund to court
Edmund described as likeable, handsome, charming. Hes able to get away with it. His
father doesnt see through him.

From the climax in the 3rd act onwards, theres the falling action, the untying of the knot
(denouement). Through the emerging madness he becomes sane new sanity (called by a
critic). He seems to have found new wisdom, hes changed from the beginning. His
statements are plentiful. Hes on the heath (practically isolated, away from the civilisation).
The storm outside corresponds to the storm inside objective correlation. He has to go
away from the civilisation to be able to see. He goes into isolation which is a kind of
meditation, where he reaches wisdom and some sort of insight.
At the end, Cordelia dies (he had wronged her) Critics see her death as a proof that
Shakespeare didnt want to give in to sentimentality the symbol of Lears
misconception of reality, his inability to distinguish reality from illusion.
o Shakespeare shows in Lear that in real life positive characters also die, are
destroyed. Edgar (at the end) somebody who is going to rule the kingdom not
sure if hes going to be successful in ruling the kingdom, if hell be able to bring
back order to the chaos. Critics dont agree on this subject.

Topics
1. Critics have pointed out that Shakespeare not only wanted to show the domestic
relationships, but he also wanted to show more The Split between Appearance and
Reality how Gloucester and Lear cannot distinguish between appearance and reality; they dont
see through their offspring. Gloucester sees in Edmund something else.
2. The question of parental love should NOT be perceived as a public declaration, material

goods. Cordelia and Edgar love their fathers but dont want anything in return. Cordelia
doesnt want to put her heart into her mouth. Lear only seeks public declaration.
3. Human suffering in a physical as well as mental sense; Human endurance (wheres the
limit when people can still endure and not become mad?; sanity : insanity) Lear and Gloucester
are punished for their mistakes; theyre also made to see. (Gloucester is blinded physically
but is made to see.)
4. Lack of positive heroes - Critics have also stressed that this play doesnt abound in positive
characters people who have the courage to choose goodness over evil Cordelia, Kent,
Albany (husband). Albany sees the wrong doing of the two daughters and helps to make
things right. Albany changes from the ambitious character to a good person.
5. King Lears fatal mistake is that he divided the kingdom and wanted the public declaration
of his love. Critics pointed that Lears flaw is that he looks at the kingdom from the point of
67

the view of a king (self-centred doesnt listen to people around him implicit criticism of
leadership). One of the topics is so a person on the top of the social hierarchy, somebody
whos unable to see the things because hes so arrogant, powerful, doesnt take advice and
doesnt listen to anybody.
o Almost not a human being so removed from reality
o An old person feels that he has had enough experience in life
o e.g. Lears Fool (sees the world as it is) says to Lear Oh you shouldve been
exposed to real life. Because as a king, you were not. Lear of course doesnt listen.
The Play
1st act
Introduction of the court of Lear, the characters
Gloucester introduced his bastard son
Lears question is laid out Which of you shall say does love us more? The daughters
exaggerate; Cordelia says that it is impossible to express her love supposed to divide her
love between her future husband and the father. Shes punished, disinherited by Lear for her
sincere answer although shes his favourite daughter.
Goneril and Regan give a retinue of knights to Lear. The king expects to stay in the castle of
the two daughters (he gave it to them). The duke of Albany, married to Goneril, doesnt take
side with his wife whereas Duke of Cornwall does.
Duke of Albany + Goneril ; Duke of Cornwall + Regan
Cordelia has been proposed by a French prince when disinherited, shes proposed to
become the wife of the French king refugee in France.
Edmund wants to become the successor to Gloucester. He wants to make Edgar out of his
inheritance. He resorts to a forged letter Gloucester doesnt know about it. Edgar is seen
as the one who works against his father.
The number of Lears knights is reduced. The retinue is first reduced by half and then all of it King
Lear is baffled

2nd act
Parallel story of Gloucester and his sons
Edgar (due to the forged letter ) is forced into exile. (the letter is supposed to be a proof that
Edgar plotted against the life of his father)

Lear is gradually stripped of his knights, power (a symbol). At the end of the act he
doesnt even get his horse. In some stagings he gradually loses clothes naked. Hes driven out
of the castle, like a homeless person.

3rd act
Lears seeing things clearer at the heath where there is a storm raging. (the storm of his
mind)
Cordelia and the King of France are preparing a war to reinstate the order, to win back the
territory.
Gloucesters eyes are plucked out the Duke of Cornwall. Gloucester realizes he was duped
by Edmund.
The two daughters attracted to Edmund.
Gloucester is betrayed by his bastard son Edmund whom he liked and enabled to get to
court.
68

4th act
Gloucester and Lear are wandering on the Cliffs of Dover (symbolic) theyre close to
suicide. They realize of their wrong deeds. They publicly declare that they are old and
foolish.
5th act
A battle between the French and the English English are victorious evil is victorious
Lear and Cordelia are made prisoners of war
Edmund had a strong influence on Goneril. He wants both of them (Lear and Cordelia) to be
killed. The duke of Albany is outrageous and arrests his own wife and Edmund.
Duel between the two brothers Edgar (positive character) is about to kill Edmund when
Edmund reveals his scheming, repents before dying.
Goneril and Regan are set against each other. Regan dies, having been poisoned by Goneril.
Seeing her death, she could not stand that stabs herself.
Lear brings Cordelias corpse in his arms the Duke of Albany wants to reinstate all the
power to Lear who cant stand her death He passes away of a broken heart in a kind of
madness, believing she is still alive.
The Duke of Albany and Edgar will rule and perhaps reinstate peace and order in the
kingdom.

SETTING of the play is pre-Christian Shakespeare was free of any ideological,

religious constraints in showing these issues that the play is dealing with (parental love, not
seeing the truth)
DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIPS - Relationship between the daughters and the sons.
The negative characters (Goneril and Regan) want to take over the power, wealth and
status of their parents right away against the natural way issue of inheritance speeded
up:
o The breaking of domestic bonds is based in the issue of inheritance
o Lear and Gloucester want to control their children by manipulating the inheritance
issue ( they are punished for that)
A major function of a family is to provide security for its members, sense of belonging and
love
o Bonds in these two families are not completely unloving
o Cordelia and Edgar are devoted to their fathers even if they are abandoned by them
o The chaos that occurs is that the bonds are broken and re-shaped. This reshaping of
the bonds within an individual family is necessary and depends on money, power
and land (in both families). The deterioration occurs because of these factors.
o The deception that the material goods re-shape the bonds in the family causes the
downfall of all family members
FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP Gloucester : his 2 sons
o Both Edgar and Edmund challenge the patriarchal authority. Edmund wants to do
it in an unnatural way.
o Gloucester is shown as a true patriarch someone that doesnt forgive, hes angry.

69

o Later when hes blinded, hes re-joined by Edgar in disguise helps his father
(guides him, provides for him) reverse the father is dependent on his son. This
is a part of Gloucester's punishment.

Lear : 3 daughters
o Cultural materialists Dollimore: King Lear is a play about power, property and
inheritance. Lears behaviour in his opening scene displays his power These are
reflected in these domestic relationships.

FATHER-DAUGHTER RELATIONSHIPS

Cordelias real transgression is not unkindness as such but attempt to show the

o The 3 daughters represent the 2 aspects of Lear himself

His darker side (cruel, passionate, violent, greedy). The evil sisters represent
violence and dark side.
Cordelia pure, affective, softer side
o When he asks them to show their love in terms of quantity rewarded in that terms
o Goneril quote, Regan quote !! + Cordelia loves him according to her bound not
more nor less. Goneril expresses her love in a quantitative way.
o Lear takes these statements as equivalent of reality
o Love qualifying system not quantitative system critic
o In the play, Lear departs from his role of a father result of his doing disorder
and moral collapse of the family.
o One critic suggested Cordelia is a special case (young, not married), the other two
sisters already have to pledge allegiance to their husbands.
o Lear expects from Cordelia too much wants her to show him more love than for
her future husband. There is an incestuous meaning in this.
o In the end, when they get together and end up in prison, the natural bond between
the father and daughter is re-established a kind of reconciliation. When she dies
the natural bond of father and daughter is reinstalled.
Sir Richard Eyre (director in London)
About Ss work: he could determine what he preferred to write more: prose or poetry.
The question of whether or not Shakespeare is shown as a bad poet and a good playwright
S. Johnson criticized Shakespeare did not bring poetry to his plays
o Poetry is applied to play as an expressive tool; his choice to determine the degree of
verse
o King Lear more accessible even if it has less verse
o His production of Lear was described as they all took their clothes off, shouted and
died
Minimalist stage in the production (in this/his staging) had a clear view how to stage
long table Lear at the head of the table hierarchy
Lear is popular because it deals with difficult issues. Everything relates on the power
relations. Contrasts home: heath ; comfort: privation ; soft clothes: nakedness ; interior:
exterior ; richness: poverty ; (appearance : reality)
wanted to create a specific situation but a historical all expression and no decoration
The question of how much freedom does the director (he or she) have when editing one of
S plays. Any director of his plays has to make a lot of choices. The question of
70

performance ability, the length. I cut a little bit in the 4th and the 5th act. I had decided to place
Edgar on stage at the beginning of the play watching the eclipse of the sun, making him look like as
the rationalist. Otherwise I made no other changes to the content. He wanted to show him a

little bit like Hamlet, someone whos detached from the goings-on on stage. Edgar is a very
central character (opposed to Lear). He comprehends the situation better than the rest of the
characters. Edgar introduces the whole mood.

2 clips from Youtube:

o Act II Scene 4 (Ian McKellen) He becomes aware of what hes done by dividing the
kingdom. Goneril is more villainous. They want to be in control of all the kingdom.
o Act IV Scene 6 (Laurence Olivier)- Lear, Gloucester (blind), Edgar in nature. The
two fathers are disappointed. They find refuge and sanity in nature. He tells
Gloucester not to just see things with his eyes but to hear them. In the end, he tells
him to get himself glass; to take Lears eyes.
o Both two productions of Lear have remained very energetic. McKellen never gives in
melancholy, while Olivier occasionally does.

71

Romeo and Juliet

2 families who harbour a great grudge against each other; it has been suggested that the
enmity between Capulets and Montague's is not explained > considered one of the
drawbacks in the play.
The two young people, Romeo and Juliet fall in love, they are extremely young; stress on
naivety, inexperience. Because of that their love will always be shown as very sincere.
They go against the odds, against the social context.
a story of forbidden love > Shakespeare In Love; incompatibility between Shakespeare,
the author, and the woman because of the social status and they also perform this play, right
at the end..
Using Romeo and Juliet as a pretext has been done before in order to express forbidden
love; West Side Story is also based on this incompatibility; there are quite a few operas,
ballets inspired by this play. Many film adaptations.
Quote: Juliet: What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell
as sweet; so Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, retain that dear perfection which he
owes without that title:
> a name, surname is an artificial thing, a social convention which does not tell you anything
about the person who is described by this particular name. She doesn't care that he is called
Montague. The good qualities, the love would remain the same regardless of the fact that he is
called Montague. She rebels against this conventional understanding and labelling of persons.
They concentrate on the good qualities of a person which do not change, which should not be
defined by the social statues.
The play was based on two sources: one earlier source goes back to a novella by Matteo
Bandello. From the English literature, the source for Shakespeare was Arthur Brooke's
narrative poem The Tragicall History of Romeo's and Juliet
Shakespeare's first tragedy; editions go back to 1597
very lyrical and compared to other plays there is a lot of verse used; lyrical passages are
predominating. Prose is used rarely, 10%, the rest it verse. This is why it's relatively
difficult to translate.
It's very emotional, full of passion and suicidal love which represents the coincidence and
misunderstanding. Also, together with this great passionate love, there is this murderous
hatred between the two families
Also, the play speaks about fate, about some great cosmic design, fate which no man can
escape. The play ends on the note of quiet resignation. It is easiest to explain the enmity
by simply ambition, trying to control Verona, it's very banal. It may not be only fate.
many nocturnal scenes, take place during the night. Romeo and Juliet are referred to as
star-crossed lovers. A lot of reference to the cosmos, stars. The fact that it takes place in
the night; they are forced to meet in secrecy. They see the stars and speculate that it's all
written in the stars. When they speak of each other's beauty, they compare each other to
different stars. She compares his well chiselled body, he her eyes to stars.
The dialogues and the events in the play take place at an incredible pace, very very
hastily! This is significant because it makes the audience think that maybe haste is not the
best thing. Romeo and Juliet just plunge into this relationship, do not think about the
consequences. Romeo acts very in the spur of the moment; haste driven development;
from the very beginning this haste is seen as something ominous.
The two lovers who in the end die tragically because of the letter that Romeo never
receives which would explain Juliet's false death.
This tragic love story has earlier versions, not exactly Romeo and Julet and set in Verona,

72

but there are earlier texts that recount the same story. For example, Pyramus and Thisbe,
Hero and Leander, Aeneas and Dido, Troilus and Cressida. These are the tragic stories
that go back to antiquity. There is also the story of Anthony and Cleopatra. Doomed lovers.
Shakespeare made Romeo and Juliet into iconic figures of love against all the obstacles
Some other important characters in the play: Mercutio who is very sharp-tongued and who
is Romeo's friend and has an important role as well as the nurse. She gives Juliet the advice
to forget about Romeo, Julet was supposed to be married to a nobleman Paris. In a way she's
her councillor. She is shown as a comic character, she uses comic language, she's very
fussy. Sometimes she's almost on the level of a clown.
Some critics have suggested that this is not so much a plays but an extended poem of two
young lovers whose life is destroyed by this reckless passion. (recklessness, hastiness!!!!)
their love which emerges all of a sudden, is placed in a world of hatred and violence.
One critic had suggested that their love is very strong and metaphorically it is compared
to a flame; it's very bright and strong, it goes up and down easily, it burns down easily.
Too strong, too passionate love may not end happily.
This is a tragedy but what's missing from it being the typical tragedy? What is the fatal
error, tragic mistake? Go against the odds, the family? But they die because of a
coincidence, fate. It's not considered a typical tragedy because of this. They're really the
victims of something beyond them, they did not perform the tragic error.
Shakespeare seems to be following the development which had been suggested by Brooke.
He condemns their passion, they die tragically. But his message is the following: love
should be consumed, carried out in moderation. He's not in favour of exaggeration
Throughout the centuries, criticism has pointed out different aspect. More recently the
criticism sees Romeo and Juliet as Shakespeare's apprentice tragedy; where he was trying
out his skills as an author. Haste, speed with which the events take place; Shakespeare
compresses the activities to five days only. So there is this unity of time.
Some have suggested that there is no causality; the cause for their deaths is not given.
Haste in love and life is not rational. You have to mediate, of course follow the passion and
emotion but at least try to see it rationally.
The notion of time and haste can also be seen in his use of language, dialogues. Romeo is
several times given the advice by another character , friar, to do things more slowly, wisely.
The language and the dialogues which are almost split-level, very quick; they create a
frantic atmosphere. The language reflects and adds to the overall precipitation of the
events. Action is speeded up.
This story of young love, ill-fated love is considered as a prime example of romantic love;
in a sense that it is a love that goes back to the courtly love tradition, love as a concept,
for love's own sake. Juliet at some point puts it in evidence: she describes what this kind of
passionate and sincere, disinterested love; it's a love that does not expect anything in
return. The more I give to thee the more I have for both are infinite. > giving and
receiving is reciprocal, there is not expectation on either side.
what is typical of the courtly love tradition and of their relationship is that such a love is an
illicit kind of love, it is forbidden; causes emotional and physical suffering. It is also
very sensual. Romeo and Juliet pledge fidelity to each other and vow to keep their
relationship secret. Like in the tradition of courtly love, they see their love, their
relationship in both ways, spiritual and physical, sensual. There is some sort of
idealisation, adoration of both of them. This is very similar to the courtly love tradition.
All these stories going back to classical antiquity, build on the same model
it has often been stressed that Shakespeare achieved a stronger romantic value in the play
by using opposing, contradictory images. For example, he contrasts night and day
constantly. Or darkness and light. Moonlight and starlight vs the sunlight. He uses
contradictory terms. By using these opposites, he creates this dramatic tension and the
73

sense of doom, the essential tension which comes out so clearly at the end, the tension
between Eros and Tanatos, love and death which are so close. These images emphasize
the illicit nature of their relationship, the evil which is there in Verona.
More recent lit. criticism: not so much about individual characters, but the manner in
which they grow up, the context. This can be seen in the language they use. They
examine the language they use; at the beginning it is very artificial: they are still learning,
completely inexperienced; their language is artificial even between themselves and it
reflects how they were brought up to use it; later when they take their life in their own
hands, they become more sincere, they seem to be excepting the reality. The very
expressions they use differ from the beginning to the end. They grow up and mature in the
span of five days. They have to change and they do change in this span of time.

74