All posts by SARAH SPRY

About SARAH SPRY

5081190214495301

At least it isn’t raining…

Death and dying, King Lear, Tragedy, Uncategorized

As we discussed in class, it seems almost cruel that Shakespeare should show us one moment of harmonious justice only to tear it apart one moment afterwards. The entirety of the play seemed to be leading up to that triumphant moment when the true daughter would be reunited with her repentant father.

In the fairy tale version of this story that I grew up with, father and daughter are reunited in the end–after the father experiences a revelation as to the meaning of filial devotion and the dangers of excessive pride. (Here is a link to the various fairytale versions of the “how much do you love me” story http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/salt.html) In the link you can see how parallel King Lear is with the German “love like salt” tale.  Except for the tragic ending, where father and daughter die.

Now to get back to my original question, why? I think Shakespeare wanted to write a play that was more in the fun traditional Greek tragic style–where, you know, everyone dies and eyes are gouged out (think Oedipus, Antigone or The Trojan Women). What makes this play so especially tragic is that for all the constant grinding forward from bad to worse, we keep being tricked into thinking the horrible events have plateaued, or at least that there is room for optimism.

Edgar is one of the main vehicles for this unwarranted optimism. For example, in act 4 scene 1 right before he finds his disfigured father he says: “…The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune, /Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear: /The worst returns to laughter…/The wretch that thou hast blown unto the worst/ Owes nothing to they blasts.” This is incredibly painful to read a second time around because we know just low, dejected and wretched a thing fortune can make of man. It’s like something a vaudeville act; “well, at least it isn’t raining.”

Sweet optimism makes the bite of bitter fortune that much sharper. I cried when Lear carries Cordelia’s body out, maybe because I identified with the father daughter relationship. Maybe because nothing is more painful to me than the idea of a father suffering the loss of his child, of a father’s heart breaking. Perhaps Lear’s death was actually an act of mercy on Shakespeare’s part. To let him live after witnessing his daughter’s death would have been the cruelest punishment.

I suppose Cordelia had to die to show the audience how serious a crime it is to take unadorned love for granted. A father who takes his children for granted commits the greatest sin of all, throws away the most precious treasure. If Lear alone had died after his redemption it would not have been such a tragedy. He was elderly and in those days such a long life was a rarity, therefore it was not so unnatural for him to die.  But it is a a complete disruption of the natural order for an old man to bury his young daughter. Not only was she young, but beautiful and unendingly good. That is where the tragedy lies. 

I don’t think I have fully answered my own question, except to say that any other combination would not have been thoroughly tragic, and that is why Cordelia had to go.

 

 

Some by virtue fall

Measure for Measure, Psychological states

There is a recurring theme in Measure for Measure, a paradoxical relationship between vice and virtue where one becomes a vehicle for the other. This is reflected in both the plot, such as the duke’s deceptive approach to justice, as well as in the actual language of the characters.

 

Deception becomes a means for learning the truth and meting out justice. The duke disguises himself as a friar so he may learn about the goings on of the city: “Hence shall we see, / If power changes purpose, what our seemers be” (1.4.54).  In this quote the duke reveals his intention to disguise himself, so he may discover Angelo’s true nature, not just who he seems to be. But what does this reveal about the duke’s own nature? He prefers to manipulate in shade, rather than govern in a straight forward manner.

 

The duke’s questionable antics allow him to bring about what he perceives as a happy ending. Once he discovers the truth about Angelo he uses his disguise as a friar to save Claudio’s life, Isabella’s virginity and Mariana’s betrothal. He uses a morally questionable instrument to balance the scales.

 

Isabella’s virtue becomes a vehicle for sin in that her purity and innocence incites carnal desire in Angelo. Also, her unyielding adherence to the oath she made to the church forces her to abandon the one way of saving her brother’s life.

 

After Isabella’s supplication, Angelo admits that: “Most dangerous is that temptation that doth goad us on to sin in loving virtue” (2.3.180).  Isabella’s saintliness is highly desirable to Angelo, perhaps because he sees himself as an upstanding man up to that point. Or perhaps because he represents that quality in human nature that desires to defile that which is pure. In either case her chastity becomes a vehicle for lasciviousness.

 

Escalus echoes this theme in act 2 scene 1, when he says: “Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall.” Angelo “falls” because of Isabella’s virtue. Similarly, one could argue that Isabella falls because of her own virtue in that she is so chaste she is causes the audience to question her morality. What really is the good of virtue, it one will not sacrifice a part of themselves to save the life of one they love?

Similarities between Hamlet and Claudius

Character types, Hamlet, Psychological states

In act 3.2 when Claudius delivers his monologue on the nature of his deeds, I was struck by how increasingly similar he and Hamlet grow throughout the play. Claudius’ language reeks of indecision, of a man who is trapped by the oaths he made to himself:

”     Pray can I not, /Though inclination be as sharp as will./My  stronger guilt defeats my strong intent, /  And like a man to double business bound/ I stand in pause where I shall first begin, / And both neglect” (3.3.40-3).

On the one hand there is a part of him that wants to absolve himself of his sins, perhaps by taking the punishment fit for his heinous crime. But on the other hand, he doesn’t want to give up all the things he acquired through this act. His guilt is stronger than his will to repent.

Similarly Hamlet has the “strong intent” of avenging his father’s death, but this intent is ever defeated by internal debates as to a mode of action. He too is to double business bound. By always weighing two courses of action against each other, Hamlet always ends up neglecting both courses.

Moonlight in the Globe Theater

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Stage techniques

The moon and moonlight play such an important role in A Midsummer Nights Dream, that I can’t help but wonder how the mystery of moonlit hide-and-seek in the woods would be conveyed in the day lit theater?  The magic of the fairies and the confusion of the mortals seems to take place almost completely at night, and I don’t think it is incidental to the comedy.

I suppose the answer is that theater requires the audience to be as much an active part of the experience as the actors. In that they must employ their imagination and believe they see what is suggested on stage.

Nonetheless, as I was reading I couldn’t help but wonder what they would have done to facilitate the illusion of a misty moonlit English forest…