Category Archives: Tragicomedy

Forgiveness is a long time coming

Character types, Death and dying, The role of the imagination, The Winter's Tale, Tragic hero, Tragicomedy

I want subscribe to the idea that Hermione’s return is somewhat supernatural. I really do like the concept of awakening from stone and returning to the world as if exiting a state of limbo. However, it seems to me that Hermione is no wife of Pygmalion, and where his statue comes into breath at his unfettered desire we are supposed to believe her breath comes at Leontes’ true remorse. I simply cannot buy it.

To quickly reiterate the evidence of Hermione’s cloistered existence, she is found to be dead by Paulina, potentially cared for by Paulina (see her daily entrances and exits from Hermione’s possible residence), Leontes is forbidden to wed again, despite being a very eligible widower, solely at the discretion of Paulina, and Hermione is ultimately “awoken” by the ministrations of Paulina and otherworldly music. The entire event screams of a long con. But to whose benefit really? The boy remains lost, Hermione has lost 16 years with her daughter, and for what? To satisfy the whims sexually frustrated, jealous, and suddenly maniacal king? I think I would require much longer than the given 16 years to recover from that slight, if I ever did. So then, is it simply a question of “enough is enough?” As a man who condemned two children to death, one of which is intentional and thwarted, the other, pure negligence and successful, Leontes is a most deplorable figure.

Are we moved by his tears of remorse? Certainly, are they enough to warrant the seclusion of 16 years and the company of all but a single woman? No, probably not. What becomes of The Winter’s Tale if it is stripped of its restorative ending? Perhaps without such a moving, emotional scene the importance of the cyclical seasons is undermined, or we as an audience simply could not tolerate it. Or perhaps it expresses the existence of the redeemed penitent, and Leontes, having borne the weight of his unfortunate actions all these years can be granted the return of joy. But if one considers the lonely 16 years, the loss of Autolycus to a passing bear, Mamillius, and even the loss of a beneficial political alliance, it would seem that 16 years may not even begin to compare to the crimes committed.

A Letter to Leontes

Character types, Psychological states, The Winter's Tale, Tragic hero, Tragicomedy

Dear Leontes,

You may think you are not one of the beloved characters to the audience of The Winter’s Tale. You may think every one in the audience of The Winter’s Tale has a negative attitude towards your character. You treat Hermione out of jealousy; you treat Polixenes unfriendly; you are to blame for the death of Mamillius, your young son whom you love as much as every father on this earth loves his child; you are also to blame for the death of dearest Hermione; and finally, under your command newborn Perdita is left on the seacoast of  Bohemia.

All these events take a toll in your life. You have suffered for 16 years. These 16 years, you have mourned over your virtuous queen’s death. Yes, you are wrong to think of her having a romantic relation with Polixenes. Georges Duby would support your suspicions, though. In his A Courtly Model, Duby explains that courtly love is secret and not seen in marriage life since medieval marriages were not based on love. Nonetheless, you have proved that maybe you didn’t wed Hermione out of love, but you have showed the audience that the magical thing that has kept you in mourning all those years is nothing but love, your passionate love.

You are very cruel to newborn Perdita, who you think isn’t your legitimate daughter. So, you order her to be abandoned, because you don’t want to be called Father by a bastard. Your decision to abandon Perdita is very common for a royal family in the medieval age where bloodline determines the heirs to thrones.

Human beings are not angels. Like angels, we don’t live in a divine realm where mistakes presumably don’t exist. We live in a human world where making mistakes is obvious. We make mistakes because our knowledge is limited. Therefore, making mistakes from not knowing should be justified.

In the beginning of the play, you are the King Leontes, Father Leontes, Friend Leontes and Husband  Leontes. But only one mistake, one unknowing mistake destroys the whole chain of relationship. You suspect Hermione and Polixenes, which makes you angry, which leads to a break in life-long friendships, which causes a motion to throw Hermione into the prison, which leads to the separation of Mamillius from his mother and to his death, which forces you to abandon Perdita. You cause the disruption 16 years ago in Sicilia with a mistake.

Now, after 16 years here you are again, King Leontes, facilitating the reunification of all broken relationships. In Sicilia, Perdita finds her father, Polixenes meets his old true friend, and fair Hermione is restored to life with a magic touch.

It all starts from Sicilia, at the court of Leontes, it all ends now in Siciclia, at the court of Leontes. This 16-years-later Leontes has learned from the time, from his mistakes.

 

Duke or Douche?

Class and status, Measure for Measure, Tragicomedy

Measure for Measure begins with the Duke announcing he must take leave and put Angelo  in charge of his dukedom, Vienna. The Duke then tells the audience he doesn’t plan on traveling outside of the city for business. He tells the audience that he wants to see Angelo handle the power of being a Duke and how he runs the dukedom in his absence.  The Duke Vincentio takes on the robe of a friar to overlook his city while remaining anonymous.

My biggest problem with the Duke is he appointed Angelo to power and yet, he set Angelo up to fail. I think that is grossly irresponsible and he isn’t being considerate of his comrade Angelo. I would say Angelo is loyal to the Duke and any individual who is granted power without any supervision is susceptible to misusing said power. The whole story of Measure for Measure could be avoided if the Duke doesn’t decide to do this social experiment. The Duke specifically says that he fears his city is starting to become fearless of his authority and he needs to put Angelo in charge to get them to start respecting authority again. At the end of the play however, he doesn’t hesitate in trying to kill off Angelo. I never really liked Angelo as a character; in fact I despised him in a way. However loyalty is something that should always be held up, especially considering Angelo is the Duke’s man. I felt like the Duke should have taken more responsibility for Angelo’s appointment. The Duke ends up being even more powerful with the city in shambles after Angelo’s reign and people supporting him even more. The Duke was this plotting character throughout the story. The one constant thing about Measure for Measure is that no character was really a hero and everyone was really full of it. I stick by the Duke being a Douche.

 

A Beautiful Dramedy

Generic characteristics, Psychological states, Stage techniques, The role of the imagination, The Winter's Tale, Tragicomedy

The Winter’s Tale is a play that requires major suspension of disbelief. It is at several moments more unrealistic than A Midsummer Night’s Dream, a play that contains fairies and pixies, and the king’s madness is more irrational than that of even Lear. Though thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining the story itself is a preposterous flight of fancy. The king is petulant and sullen without just cause, and his moods flicker at the flick of a switch. The queen’s resurrection is a fantastical, and a pleasant surprise in an ending that seems made for “happily ever after” end credits. Even Antigonus’ death, which is both grotesque and abrupt, becomes humorous and lighthearted in this story line.

However, in my mind the humor and fantasy are marred by the death of Mamillius.  This is my one point of contention and the only scene that ties the play to tragedy of any kind. But Shakespeare masterfully fills in the gaps left by the characters taken away by death; Hermione is reborn, Florizel, who is similar in age to Mamillius, comes to the kingdom as Leontes’ son by marriage, and Paulina regains a husband of proven virtue and honor.  All of the loose ends are tied, no one is left suffering or in pain, and it is sweet, but too good to be true.  Overall, The Winters Tale is a funny lighthearted tale that handles dark, loaded topics with just the right measure of sugar to coat over the uncomfortable patches.

Preparing to 'awake' and love the husband who wanted her dead and almost made her completely childless
Preparing to ‘awake’ and love the husband who wanted her dead and almost made her completely childless

Autolycus: The Wolf [Him]self

Character types, Class and status, Costumes and props, The Winter's Tale, Tragicomedy,

There is a great deal of talk talk about bears, lions, and other beasts such as wolves in The Winter’s Tale, but by the second half of the play, we realize that the only wolf we are going to meet is Autolycus. This is not to say that this rogue is simply an antagonist, though. He is a highly complex character who falls somewhere in between the realms of good and bad: the realm of mankind.

To start, it is important to mention that the name Autolycus means “The Wolf itself” and has an extensive background in Greek mythology. In short, the mythological Autolycus was the son of Hermes and the grandfather of Odysseus.  He is said to have been a great thief who had the gift of never being caught.  It is interesting that this is the meaning behind his name, especially after we see him stealing fleece at sheep-shearing festival.  In addition to this, he calls people “the herd” (4.4) after he completes this task.  As we all know, wolves typically prey on sheep, and therefore, the sheep tend to fear them. This fact of nature would normally lead us to believe that Autolycus is evil and wishes to cause the people harm. Yet this is not the case. The people (or the “herd”) don’t fear Autolycus because he’s not really hurting anyone with what he’s doing. It is more likely that he deems these people “the herd” not because he wishes them harm, but because he is extremely clever and cunning and can constantly outwit and win these mindless sheep-like individuals over with his charming personality.  It should also be noted that prior to this festival, Autolycus has been stealing sheets. There is an apparent sexual connotation here that brings to mind it the issue of Leontes, who thought Hermione was sleeping with King Polixenes. This links the latter half of the play back with the first and gives us reason to believe that Autolycus is a foil of Leontes. Autolycus uses his “profession” to his advantage and sparks a comedic element in the play, while Leontes is suffering the consequences of his false accusations and represents the tragic aspect of the play.

Autolycus appears in disguise several times (as peddler at the sheep shearing festival and later as a nobleman), tricks nearly everyone he comes in contact with by picking their pockets, and also captivates them through bawdy songs which are often about marriage, love, and sex. Shakespeare has presented us with a highly seductive character, which is likely one of the reasons why audiences and the people around him in the play seem to take a liking to him so much. His behavior is anything but honorable and he often speaks and sings crudely, but his songs are still expressed in a way that is artful and appeals to the senses and interests of his audience, and his deeds are almost overshadowed by his skillful wit and honesty with the audience.  Autolycus might bring to mind Milton’s interpretation of the devil in Paradise Lost; though he is acting immorally and takes on different forms, we cannot help but also feel some sort of sympathy for and attraction toward him as a character. It helps that he really conveys the plight of the working class and shifting times on a larger level.  We can see through his description of himself (4.4, 95-102) and also his actions that sometimes he works, sometimes he steals, and sometimes he begs.  It is clear through many of the plays we have read (especially through Measure for Measure and King Lear, in my opinion) that Shakespeare was aware that life was not easy for most people living in 17th century England. It was a struggle to put food on the table each day, but Autolycus makes light of the situation through his humor, and would therefore be appealing to and appreciated by this large portion of the population.

In addition to this, when we learn that he used to work in the court, it becomes evident that he also serves as a link between the royal world and the pastoral world.  He isn’t your typical member of the bourgeoisie. Autolycus always masters every situation he’s in and he is a jack-of-all-trades.  He is not unlike Falstaff in terms of his wit and general competence; there is no doubt that he is in control and very aware of what is going on around him. I might go so far as to argue that Autolycus is what the every day workingman might dream to be.  He is admirable in that he makes the best of his situation and doesn’t seem to be suffering, though he goes about it in a less than admirable manner. Even so, his character gives a sense of hope to the working class poor in the audience in Shakespeare’s time, and even today.

Through all of this, it becomes quite difficult to characterize Autolycus as a predatory wolf. He is always honest about his intentions from the start. He never presents them as honorable, and although his intentions aren’t pure in any sense of the word, they are not really “evil” either. His crimes are what we would consider relatively petty, especially when juxtaposed with the crimes of King Leontes.  And we cannot forget that Autolycus’ actions eventually lead to reconciliation and harmony at the play’s end. It is undeniable that he is a complex character who is difficult to define explicitly, but we might all be unified in the notion that in all of its mystery and chaos, Act 3 scene 3 was setting us up for the entrance of a character of this nature. Through Autolycus, laughter and joy are brought into a play filled with tragic undertones, and beyond all of the fantastical elements we are presented with on stage, we finally meet a character that is truly human.

Was Shakespeare an early Feminist?

Measure for Measure, Psychological states, Tragicomedy, ,

In Act 5 Scene 1 of Measure for Measure, I found the moment when Isabella kneels and pleads for Angelo’s life to be not only beautiful, but also particularly revealing of her character’s growth and development throughout the play.  In begging the Duke to pardon Angelo, I strongly believe that she was implicitly pardoning her own internal desires that never quite manifested themselves.  Although Isabella was originally planning on becoming a nun, we see throughout the play that she has exhibited a sense of sexual curiosity and feminine power that she may or may not be aware of. I would argue that by the play’s end, in the segment where she is shown kneeling, Isabella has become aware of not only her power over the men around her, but also the power of the human psyche and how it is often difficult to control.  She says, “For Angelo,/ His act did not o’ertake his bad intent,/ An must be buried but as an intent/ That perished by the way. Thoughts are no subjects,/ Intents but merely thoughts” (5.1, 453-458).  At this point, she senses that it is in our nature as human beings to think unclean thoughts; the text suggests that she may be forgiving herself for any such thoughts she has had in the past, for she herself did not yield to them. It becomes evident through these actions that Isabella will not be returning to the convent.  Her posture in this scene is highly religious, but rather than choosing to dedicate her life to God, Isabella has found peace in knowing that one can assert control over their actions and still manage to live a virtuous life, even if his or her thoughts aren’t necessarily pure.

The irony in all of this is that just as Isabella has this epiphany and is essentially granted free will, the Duke proposes to her.  Although the audience doesn’t hear her response, we are likely to assume that she agrees to the marriage because the Duke saved Claudio.  With this, her freedom of choice is revoked. This makes the play seem rather tragic in my eyes because just as Isabella is beginning to recognize her power and how it can free her mind, she becomes trapped within the confines of marriage.  And even if she rejects the Duke, it is probable that she will be shamed back to the nunnery, resulting in a Catch 22 of sorts.  In either instance, Isabella’s potential to become a powerful member of society has been hindered by the men around her.  With this being said, I cannot help but  begin to wonder if Shakespeare himself was a bit of a feminist through his portrayal of women in plays such as Measure for Measure.

Dream, reality, and somewhere in between

A Midsummer Night's Dream, The role of the imagination, Tragicomedy, ,

Even in a dreamlike world of commoners, lovers, and fairies, different levels of reality still exist. The most believable plot involves the relationship between Theseus and Hippolyta. The duke “wooed” her with his sword and now gets to marry his prize. Naturally, Hippolyta is neither eager nor ecstatic to marry her victor as she is a strong-headed Amazon woman. It will come as no surprise if Theseus “breaks his faith” again as he had done before. Relationships that resemble that of Theseus and Hippolyta are not uncommon in their time.

At the other end of the reality spectrum, there is Oberon and Titania’s fantastical relationship. They are volatile characters that resort to magic to solve their issues. Oberon not only wishes his wife to fall in love with a vile creature but he also steals the changeling from her. After all the strange events, Titania and Oberon exit the stage in unity. Their relationship is unrealistic to say the least.

In between reality and fantasy, there are the four Athenian lovers and the mechanicals. Hermia and Lysander are deeply in love for reasons unknown to the audience while Helena blindly pursues Demetrius despite his cruel responses. They are blissfully and naively in love. Just as naïve are the workers who persuade themselves that they are worthy of performing at the duke’s wedding. These groups of characters have no control over their fates. Demetrius only falls in love with Helena because of the “love juice” and the workers’ play only gets chosen because of its absurdity. Despite their difference in class, the Athenians and the workers are all puppets within the play.

The Curious Case of Nick Bottom?

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Generic characteristics, Tragicomedy

The character of the “fool” has been a major staple within Shakespearean literature, as it presents a character that is “ahead of the curve”. Through several of his playwrights, regardless of the overall tone of his story, Shakespeare creatively found a way to insert a character that is so unique and unorthodox that the reader can’t help but gravitate to said character. A perfect demonstration of such a person is Nick Bottom from within  A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Bottom (as Shakespeare so eloquently titles him throughout the play) is introduced as an immature, cocky, and jackass (both figuratively and literally) of a human being. His mindset is transfixed on the notion that he knows all compared to his other craftsmen counterparts. The true comedy roots from his total obliviousness to his animalistic transformation that occurs during the 3rd Act of the playwright. Shakespeare intentionally turns the characters head into that of a donkey, and therefore the effect the term “jackass” now has become a triple entendre (i.e. the relation to the characters name being “Bottom”, his head now being an actual Donkey a.k.a an ass, and the simple fact that his personality is that of a jackass unto itself).

Without a doubt this was extremely clever scripting by Shakespeare, but the true genius of this character comes towards the end of the play as one see’s the interesting transformation of Bottom. The interesting transformation is that there is no transformation; none of personality, action, or revelation. Aside from his brief change in physical appearance, the man we meet in the beginning of the story is the exact same man we are left with when the curtains close. THAT is what make this character so intriguing; the simple fact that within this play every person that wakes up from their “dream state” goes through some change in character but this one man. It seems that his foolishness is actually a synonym for a strong sense of wisdom. Bottom is able to remain true to his self regardless of the outlandish circumstances; he is also the only person to be aware of both the fairy world and the “real” world. If being a fool allows me to remain myself through the most drastic of situation then color me an insane fool. And with that I leave you with this:

“A Fool Thinks Himself To Be Wise, But A Wise Man Knows Himself To Be A FOOL”-Will Shakespeare.