-
Shakespearean Tragedy
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Shakespearean Tragedy,by A. C.
Bradley This eBook is for the use of anyoneanywhere at no cost and
with almost no restrictionswhatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use itunder the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
includedwith this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net
Title: Shakespearean Tragedy Lectures on Hamlet,Othello, King
Lear, Macbeth
Author: A. C. Bradley
Shakespearean Tragedy 1
-
Release Date: October 30, 2005 [EBook #16966]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOKSHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY
***
Produced by Suzanne Shell, Lisa Reigel and the OnlineDistributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
LONDONBOMBAYCALCUTTAMADRASMELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORKBOSTONCHICAGODALLASSANFRANCISCO
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
TORONTO
Shakespearean Tragedy 2
-
SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY
LECTURES ON
HAMLET, OTHELLO, KING LEAR
MACBETH
BY
A.C. BRADLEY
LL.D. LITT.D., FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF POETRY INTHE UNIVERSITY OF
OXFORD
SECOND EDITION (_THIRTEENTH IMPRESSION_)
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED ST. MARTIN'S STREET,LONDON
1919
_COPYRIGHT._
First Edition 1904.
Second Edition March 1905.
Shakespearean Tragedy 3
-
Reprinted August 1905, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1911, 1912,1914, 1915,
1916, 1918, 1919.
GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BYROBERT MACLEHOSE AND
CO. LTD.
TO MY STUDENTS
PREFACE
These lectures are based on a selection from materialsused in
teaching at Liverpool, Glasgow, and Oxford; and Ihave for the most
part preserved the lecture form. Thepoint of view taken in them is
explained in the Introduction.I should, of course, wish them to be
read in their order, anda knowledge of the first two is assumed in
the remainder;but readers who may prefer to enter at once on
thediscussion of the several plays can do so by beginning atpage
89.
Any one who writes on Shakespeare must owe much to
hispredecessors. Where I was conscious of a particularobligation, I
have acknowledged it; but most of my readingof Shakespearean
criticism was done many years ago, andI can only hope that I have
not often reproduced as myown what belongs to another.
Shakespearean Tragedy 4
-
Many of the Notes will be of interest only to scholars, whomay
find, I hope, something new in them.
I have quoted, as a rule, from the Globe edition, and
havereferred always to its numeration of acts, scenes,
andlines.
_November, 1904._
* * * * *
NOTE TO SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT IMPRESSIONS
In these impressions I have confined myself to makingsome formal
improvements, correcting indubitablemistakes, and indicating here
and there my desire tomodify or develop at some future time
statements whichseem to me doubtful or open to misunderstanding.
Thechanges, where it seemed desirable, are shown by theinclusion of
sentences in square brackets.
CONTENTS
PAGE INTRODUCTION 1
LECTURE I.
Shakespearean Tragedy 5
-
THE SUBSTANCE OF SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY 5
LECTURE II.
CONSTRUCTION IN SHAKESPEARE'S TRAGEDIES 40
LECTURE III.
SHAKESPEARE'S TRAGIC PERIOD--HAMLET 79
LECTURE IV.
HAMLET 129
LECTURE V.
OTHELLO 175
LECTURE VI.
OTHELLO 207
LECTURE VII.
KING LEAR 243
LECTURE VIII.
Shakespearean Tragedy 6
-
KING LEAR 280
LECTURE IX.
MACBETH 331
LECTURE X.
MACBETH 366
NOTE A. Events before the opening of the action in Hamlet401
NOTE B. Where was Hamlet at the time of his father'sdeath?
403
NOTE C. Hamlet's age 407
NOTE D. 'My tables--meet it is I set it down' 409
NOTE E. The Ghost in the cellarage 412
NOTE F. The Player's speech in Hamlet 413
NOTE G. Hamlet's apology to Laertes 420
NOTE H. The exchange of rapiers 422
Shakespearean Tragedy 7
-
NOTE I. The duration of the action in Othello 423
NOTE J. The 'additions' in the Folio text of Othello. ThePontic
sea 429
NOTE K. Othello's courtship 432
NOTE L. Othello in the Temptation scene 434
NOTE M. Questions as to Othello, IV. i. 435
NOTE N. Two passages in the last scene of Othello 437
NOTE O. Othello on Desdemona's last words 438
NOTE P. Did Emilia suspect Iago? 439
NOTE Q. Iago's suspicion regarding Cassio and Emilia 441
NOTE R. Reminiscences of Othello in King Lear 441
NOTE S. King Lear and Timon of Athens 443
NOTE T. Did Shakespeare shorten _King Lear_? 445
NOTE U. Movements of the _dramatis person_ in KingLear, II
448
Shakespearean Tragedy 8
-
NOTE V. Suspected interpolations in King Lear 450
NOTE W. The staging of the scene of Lear's reunion withCordelia
453
NOTE X. The Battle in King Lear 456
NOTE Y. Some difficult passages in King Lear 458
NOTE Z. Suspected interpolations in Macbeth 466
NOTE AA. Has Macbeth been abridged? 467
NOTE BB. The date of Macbeth. Metrical Tests 470
NOTE CC. When was the murder of Duncan first plotted?480
NOTE DD. Did Lady Macbeth really faint? 484
NOTE EE. Duration of the action in Macbeth. Macbeth'sage. 'He
has no children' 486
NOTE FF. The Ghost of Banquo 492
INDEX 494
Shakespearean Tragedy 9
-
INTRODUCTION
In these lectures I propose to consider the four
principaltragedies of Shakespeare from a single point of
view.Nothing will be said of Shakespeare's place in the
historyeither of English literature or of the drama in general.
Noattempt will be made to compare him with other writers. Ishall
leave untouched, or merely glanced at, questionsregarding his life
and character, the development of hisgenius and art, the
genuineness, sources, texts,inter-relations of his various works.
Even what may becalled, in a restricted sense, the 'poetry' of the
fourtragedies--the beauties of style, diction, versification--I
shallpass by in silence. Our one object will be what, again in
arestricted sense, may be called dramatic appreciation; toincrease
our understanding and enjoyment of these worksas dramas; to learn
to apprehend the action and some ofthe personages of each with a
somewhat greater truth andintensity, so that they may assume in our
imaginations ashape a little less unlike the shape they wore in
theimagination of their creator. For this end all those studiesthat
were mentioned just now, of literary history and thelike, are
useful and even in various degrees necessary. Butan overt pursuit
of them is not necessary here, nor is anyone of them so
indispensable to our object as that closefamiliarity with the
plays, that native strength and justice ofperception, and that
habit of reading with an eager mind,
Shakespearean Tragedy 10
-
which make many an unscholarly lover of Shakespeare afar better
critic than many a Shakespeare scholar.
Such lovers read a play more or less as if they were actorswho
had to study all the parts. They do not need, ofcourse, to imagine
whereabouts the persons are to stand,or what gestures they ought to
use; but they want to realisefully and exactly the inner movements
which producedthese words and no other, these deeds and no other,
ateach particular moment. This, carried through a drama, isthe
right way to read the dramatist Shakespeare; and theprime requisite
here is therefore a vivid and intentimagination. But this alone
will hardly suffice. It isnecessary also, especially to a true
conception of thewhole, to compare, to analyse, to dissect. And
suchreaders often shrink from this task, which seems to themprosaic
or even a desecration. They misunderstand, Ibelieve. They would not
shrink if they remembered twothings. In the first place, in this
process of comparison andanalysis, it is not requisite, it is on
the contrary ruinous, toset imagination aside and to substitute
some supposed'cold reason'; and it is only want of practice that
makes theconcurrent use of analysis and of poetic perception
difficultor irksome. And, in the second place, these
dissectingprocesses, though they are also imaginative, are still,
andare meant to be, nothing but means to an end. When theyhave
finished their work (it can only be finished for the
Shakespearean Tragedy 11
-
time) they give place to the end, which is that sameimaginative
reading or re-creation of the drama from whichthey set out, but a
reading now enriched by the products ofanalysis, and therefore far
more adequate and enjoyable.
This, at any rate, is the faith in the strength of which
Iventure, with merely personal misgivings, on the path ofanalytic
interpretation. And so, before coming to the first ofthe four
tragedies, I propose to discuss some preliminarymatters which
concern them all. Though each is individualthrough and through,
they have, in a sense, one and thesame substance; for in all of
them Shakespeare representsthe tragic aspect of life, the tragic
fact. They have, again,up to a certain point, a common form or
structure. Thissubstance and this structure, which would be found
todistinguish them, for example, from Greek tragedies, may,to
diminish repetition, be considered once for all; and inconsidering
them we shall also be able to observecharacteristic differences
among the four plays. And to thismay be added the little that it
seems necessary to premiseon the position of these dramas in
Shakespeare's literarycareer.
Much that is said on our main preliminary subjects willnaturally
hold good, within certain limits, of other dramas ofShakespeare
beside Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, andMacbeth. But it will often
apply to these other works only in
Shakespearean Tragedy 12
-
part, and to some of them more fully than to others. Romeoand
Juliet, for instance, is a pure tragedy, but it is an earlywork,
and in some respects an immature one. _RichardIII._ and _Richard
II._, Julius Caesar, Antony andCleopatra, and Coriolanus are tragic
histories or historicaltragedies, in which Shakespeare acknowledged
in practicea certain obligation to follow his authority, even when
thatauthority offered him an undramatic material. Probably
hehimself would have met some criticisms to which theseplays are
open by appealing to their historical character,and by denying that
such works are to be judged by thestandard of pure tragedy. In any
case, most of these plays,perhaps all, do show, as a matter of
fact, considerabledeviations from that standard; and, therefore,
what is saidof the pure tragedies must be applied to them
withqualifications which I shall often take for granted
withoutmention. There remain Titus Andronicus and Timon ofAthens.
The former I shall leave out of account, because,even if
Shakespeare wrote the whole of it, he did so beforehe had either a
style of his own or any characteristic tragicconception. Timon
stands on a different footing. Parts of itare unquestionably
Shakespeare's, and they will bereferred to in one of the later
lectures. But much of thewriting is evidently not his, and as it
seems probable thatthe conception and construction of the whole
tragedyshould also be attributed to some other writer, I shall
omitthis work too from our preliminary discussions.
Shakespearean Tragedy 13
-
LECTURE I
THE SUBSTANCE OF SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY
The question we are to consider in this lecture may bestated in
a variety of ways. We may put it thus: What is thesubstance of a
Shakespearean tragedy, taken inabstraction both from its form and
from the differences inpoint of substance between one tragedy and
another? Orthus: What is the nature of the tragic aspect of life
asrepresented by Shakespeare? What is the general factshown now in
this tragedy and now in that? And we areputting the same question
when we ask: What isShakespeare's tragic conception, or conception
of tragedy?
These expressions, it should be observed, do not implythat
Shakespeare himself ever asked or answered such aquestion; that he
set himself to reflect on the tragic aspectsof life, that he framed
a tragic conception, and still lessthat, like Aristotle or
Corneille, he had a theory of the kindof poetry called tragedy.
These things are all possible; howfar any one of them is probable
we need not discuss; butnone of them is presupposed by the question
we are goingto consider. This question implies only that, as a
matter offact, Shakespeare in writing tragedy did represent a
certainaspect of life in a certain way, and that through
Shakespearean Tragedy 14
-
examination of his writings we ought to be able, to someextent,
to describe this aspect and way in terms addressedto the
understanding. Such a description, so far as it is trueand
adequate, may, after these explanations, be calledindifferently an
account of the substance ofShakespearean tragedy, or an account of
Shakespeare'sconception of tragedy or view of the tragic fact.
Two further warnings may be required. In the first place,we must
remember that the tragic aspect of life is only oneaspect. We
cannot arrive at Shakespeare's whole dramaticway of looking at the
world from his tragedies alone, as wecan arrive at Milton's way of
regarding things, or atWordsworth's or at Shelley's, by examining
almost any oneof their important works. Speaking very broadly, one
maysay that these poets at their best always look at things inone
light; but Hamlet and _Henry IV._ and Cymbelinereflect things from
quite distinct positions, andShakespeare's whole dramatic view is
not to be identifiedwith any one of these reflections. And, in the
second place,I may repeat that in these lectures, at any rate for
the mostpart, we are to be content with his dramatic view, and
arenot to ask whether it corresponded exactly with hisopinions or
creed outside his poetry--the opinions or creedof the being whom we
sometimes oddly call 'Shakespearethe man.' It does not seem likely
that outside his poetry hewas a very simple-minded Catholic or
Protestant or Atheist,
Shakespearean Tragedy 15
-
as some have maintained; but we cannot be sure, as withthose
other poets we can, that in his works he expressedhis deepest and
most cherished convictions on ultimatequestions, or even that he
had any. And in his dramaticconceptions there is enough to occupy
us.
1
In approaching our subject it will be best, withoutattempting to
shorten the path by referring to famoustheories of the drama, to
start directly from the facts, and tocollect from them gradually an
idea of ShakespeareanTragedy. And first, to begin from the outside,
such atragedy brings before us a considerable number of
persons(many more than the persons in a Greek play, unless
themembers of the Chorus are reckoned among them); but itis
pre-eminently the story of one person, the 'hero,'[1] or atmost of
two, the 'hero' and 'heroine.' Moreover, it is only inthe
love-tragedies, Romeo and Juliet and Antony andCleopatra, that the
heroine is as much the centre of theaction as the hero. The rest,
including Macbeth, are singlestars. So that, having noticed the
peculiarity of these twodramas, we may henceforth, for the sake of
brevity, ignoreit, and may speak of the tragic story as being
concernedprimarily with one person.
Shakespearean Tragedy 16
-
The story, next, leads up to, and includes, the death of
thehero. On the one hand (whatever may be true of
tragedyelsewhere), no play at the end of which the hero
remainsalive is, in the full Shakespearean sense, a tragedy; andwe
no longer class Troilus and Cressida or Cymbeline assuch, as did
the editors of the Folio. On the other hand, thestory depicts also
the troubled part of the hero's life whichprecedes and leads up to
his death; and an instantaneousdeath occurring by 'accident' in the
midst of prosperitywould not suffice for it. It is, in fact,
essentially a tale ofsuffering and calamity conducting to
death.
The suffering and calamity are, moreover, exceptional.They
befall a conspicuous person. They are themselves ofsome striking
kind. They are also, as a rule, unexpected,and contrasted with
previous happiness or glory. A tale, forexample, of a man slowly
worn to death by disease,poverty, little cares, sordid vices, petty
persecutions,however piteous or dreadful it might be, would not be
tragicin the Shakespearean sense.
Such exceptional suffering and calamity, then, affecting
thehero, and--we must now add--generally extending far andwide
beyond him, so as to make the whole scene a sceneof woe, are an
essential ingredient in tragedy and a chiefsource of the tragic
emotions, and especially of pity. Butthe proportions of this
ingredient, and the direction taken
Shakespearean Tragedy 17
-
by tragic pity, will naturally vary greatly. Pity, for
example,has a much larger part in King Lear than in Macbeth, and
isdirected in the one case chiefly to the hero, in the otherchiefly
to minor characters.
Let us now pause for a moment on the ideas we have sofar
reached. They would more than suffice to describe thewhole tragic
fact as it presented itself to the mediaevalmind. To the mediaeval
mind a tragedy meant a narrativerather than a play, and its notion
of the matter of thisnarrative may readily be gathered from Dante
or, stillbetter, from Chaucer. Chaucer's _Monk's Tale_ is a
seriesof what he calls 'tragedies'; and this means in fact a
seriesof tales de Casibus Illustrium Virorum,--stories of the
Fallsof Illustrious Men, such as Lucifer, Adam, Hercules
andNebuchadnezzar. And the Monk ends the tale of Croesusthus:
Anhanged was Cresus, the proud kyng; His roial tronmyghte hym
nat availle. Tragdie is noon oother manerthyng, Ne kan in syngyng
cri ne biwaille But for thatFortune alwey wole assaile With unwar
strook the regnsthat been proude; For whan men trusteth hire,
thanne wolshe faille, And covere hire brighte fac with a
clowde.
A total reverse of fortune, coming unawares upon a manwho 'stood
in high degree,' happy and apparently
Shakespearean Tragedy 18
-
secure,--such was the tragic fact to the mediaeval mind.
Itappealed strongly to common human sympathy and pity; itstartled
also another feeling, that of fear. It frightened menand awed them.
It made them feel that man is blind andhelpless, the plaything of
an inscrutable power, called bythe name of Fortune or some other
name,--a power whichappears to smile on him for a little, and then
on a suddenstrikes him down in his pride.
Shakespeare's idea of the tragic fact is larger than this
ideaand goes beyond it; but it includes it, and it is worth whileto
observe the identity of the two in a certain point which isoften
ignored. Tragedy with Shakespeare is concernedalways with persons
of 'high degree'; often with kings orprinces; if not, with leaders
in the state like Coriolanus,Brutus, Antony; at the least, as in
Romeo and Juliet, withmembers of great houses, whose quarrels are
of publicmoment. There is a decided difference here betweenOthello
and our three other tragedies, but it is not adifference of kind.
Othello himself is no mere privateperson; he is the General of the
Republic. At the beginningwe see him in the Council-Chamber of the
Senate. Theconsciousness of his high position never leaves him. At
theend, when he is determined to live no longer, he is asanxious as
Hamlet not to be misjudged by the great world,and his last speech
begins,
Shakespearean Tragedy 19
-
Soft you; a word or two before you go. I have done thestate some
service, and they know it.[2]
And this characteristic of Shakespeare's tragedies, thoughnot
the most vital, is neither external nor unimportant. Thesaying that
every death-bed is the scene of the fifth act of atragedy has its
meaning, but it would not be true if the word'tragedy' bore its
dramatic sense. The pangs of despisedlove and the anguish of
remorse, we say, are the same in apeasant and a prince; but, not to
insist that they cannot beso when the prince is really a prince,
the story of theprince, the triumvir, or the general, has a
greatness anddignity of its own. His fate affects the welfare of a
wholenation or empire; and when he falls suddenly from theheight of
earthly greatness to the dust, his fall produces asense of
contrast, of the powerlessness of man, and of
theomnipotence--perhaps the caprice--of Fortune or Fate,which no
tale of private life can possibly rival.
Such feelings are constantly evoked by
Shakespeare'stragedies,--again in varying degrees. Perhaps they are
thevery strongest of the emotions awakened by the earlytragedy of
_Richard II._, where they receive a concentratedexpression in
Richard's famous speech about the anticDeath, who sits in the
hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king,
Shakespearean Tragedy 20
-
grinning at his pomp, watching till his vanity and his
fanciedsecurity have wholly encased him round, and then comingand
boring with a little pin through his castle wall. Andthese
feelings, though their predominance is subdued inthe mightiest
tragedies, remain powerful there. In the figureof the maddened Lear
we see
A sight most pitiful in the meanest wretch, Past speaking ofin a
king;
and if we would realise the truth in this matter we cannotdo
better than compare with the effect of King Lear theeffect of
Tourgnief's parallel and remarkable tale ofpeasant life, A King
Lear of the Steppes.
2
A Shakespearean tragedy as so far considered may becalled a
story of exceptional calamity leading to the deathof a man in high
estate. But it is clearly much more thanthis, and we have now to
regard it from another side. Noamount of calamity which merely
befell a man, descendingfrom the clouds like lightning, or stealing
from the darknesslike pestilence, could alone provide the substance
of itsstory. Job was the greatest of all the children of the
east,and his afflictions were well-nigh more than he could bear;but
even if we imagined them wearing him to death, that
Shakespearean Tragedy 21
-
would not make his story tragic. Nor yet would it becomeso, in
the Shakespearean sense, if the fire, and the greatwind from the
wilderness, and the torments of his fleshwere conceived as sent by
a supernatural power, whetherjust or malignant. The calamities of
tragedy do not simplyhappen, nor are they sent; they proceed mainly
fromactions, and those the actions of men.
We see a number of human beings placed in certaincircumstances;
and we see, arising from the co-operationof their characters in
these circumstances, certain actions.These actions beget others,
and these others beget othersagain, until this series of
inter-connected deeds leads byan apparently inevitable sequence to
a catastrophe. Theeffect of such a series on imagination is to make
us regardthe sufferings which accompany it, and the catastrophe
inwhich it ends, not only or chiefly as something whichhappens to
the persons concerned, but equally assomething which is caused by
them. This at least may besaid of the principal persons, and, among
them, of thehero, who always contributes in some measure to
thedisaster in which he perishes.
This second aspect of tragedy evidently differs greatly fromthe
first. Men, from this point of view, appear to us primarilyas
agents, 'themselves the authors of their proper woe';and our fear
and pity, though they will not cease or
Shakespearean Tragedy 22
-
diminish, will be modified accordingly. We are now toconsider
this second aspect, remembering that it too isonly one aspect, and
additional to the first, not a substitutefor it.
The 'story' or 'action' of a Shakespearean tragedy does
notconsist, of course, solely of human actions or deeds; butthe
deeds are the predominant factor. And these deedsare, for the most
part, actions in the full sense of the word;not things done ''tween
asleep and wake,' but acts oromissions thoroughly expressive of
thedoer,--characteristic deeds. The centre of the
tragedy,therefore, may be said with equal truth to lie in
actionissuing from character, or in character issuing in
action.
Shakespeare's main interest lay here. To say that it lay inmere
character, or was a psychological interest, would bea great
mistake, for he was dramatic to the tips of hisfingers. It is
possible to find places where he has given acertain indulgence to
his love of poetry, and even to histurn for general reflections;
but it would be very difficult,and in his later tragedies perhaps
impossible, to detectpassages where he has allowed such freedom to
theinterest in character apart from action. But for the
oppositeextreme, for the abstraction of mere 'plot' (which is a
verydifferent thing from the tragic 'action'), for the kind
ofinterest which predominates in a novel like The Woman in
Shakespearean Tragedy 23
-
White, it is clear that he cared even less. I do not meanthat
this interest is absent from his dramas; but it issubordinate to
others, and is so interwoven with them thatwe are rarely conscious
of it apart, and rarely feel in anygreat strength the
half-intellectual, half-nervous excitementof following an ingenious
complication. What we do feelstrongly, as a tragedy advances to its
close, is that thecalamities and catastrophe follow inevitably from
the deedsof men, and that the main source of these deeds
ischaracter. The dictum that, with Shakespeare, 'character
isdestiny' is no doubt an exaggeration, and one that maymislead
(for many of his tragic personages, if they had notmet with
peculiar circumstances, would have escaped atragic end, and might
even have lived fairly untroubledlives); but it is the exaggeration
of a vital truth.
This truth, with some of its qualifications, will appear
moreclearly if we now go on to ask what elements are to befound in
the 'story' or 'action,' occasionally or frequently,beside the
characteristic deeds, and the sufferings andcircumstances, of the
persons. I will refer to three of theseadditional factors.
(_a_) Shakespeare, occasionally and for reasons whichneed not be
discussed here, represents abnormalconditions of mind; insanity,
for example, somnambulism,hallucinations. And deeds issuing from
these are certainly
Shakespearean Tragedy 24
-
not what we called deeds in the fullest sense, deedsexpressive
of character. No; but these abnormal conditionsare never introduced
as the origin of deeds of any dramaticmoment. Lady Macbeth's
sleep-walking has no influencewhatever on the events that follow
it. Macbeth did notmurder Duncan because he saw a dagger in the
air: hesaw the dagger because he was about to murder Duncan.Lear's
insanity is not the cause of a tragic conflict any morethan
Ophelia's; it is, like Ophelia's, the result of a conflict;and in
both cases the effect is mainly pathetic. If Lear werereally mad
when he divided his kingdom, if Hamlet werereally mad at any time
in the story, they would cease to betragic characters.
(_b_) Shakespeare also introduces the supernatural intosome of
his tragedies; he introduces ghosts, and witcheswho have
supernatural knowledge. This supernaturalelement certainly cannot
in most cases, if in any, beexplained away as an illusion in the
mind of one of thecharacters. And further, it does contribute to
the action,and is in more than one instance an indispensable part
ofit: so that to describe human character, withcircumstances, as
always the sole motive force in thisaction would be a serious
error. But the supernatural isalways placed in the closest relation
with character. It givesa confirmation and a distinct form to
inward movementsalready present and exerting an influence; to the
sense of
Shakespearean Tragedy 25
-
failure in Brutus, to the stifled workings of conscience
inRichard, to the half-formed thought or the horrified memoryof
guilt in Macbeth, to suspicion in Hamlet. Moreover, itsinfluence is
never of a compulsive kind. It forms no morethan an element,
however important, in the problem whichthe hero has to face; and we
are never allowed to feel thatit has removed his capacity or
responsibility for dealingwith this problem. So far indeed are we
from feeling this,that many readers run to the opposite extreme,
and openlyor privately regard the supernatural as having nothing to
dowith the real interest of the play.
(_c_) Shakespeare, lastly, in most of his tragedies allowsto
'chance' or 'accident' an appreciable influence at somepoint in the
action. Chance or accident here will be found, Ithink, to mean any
occurrence (not supernatural, of course)which enters the dramatic
sequence neither from theagency of a character, nor from the
obvious surroundingcircumstances.[3] It may be called an accident,
in thissense, that Romeo never got the Friar's message aboutthe
potion, and that Juliet did not awake from her longsleep a minute
sooner; an accident that Edgar arrived atthe prison just too late
to save Cordelia's life; an accidentthat Desdemona dropped her
handkerchief at the mostfatal of moments; an accident that the
pirate ship attackedHamlet's ship, so that he was able to return
forthwith toDenmark. Now this operation of accident is a fact, and
a
Shakespearean Tragedy 26
-
prominent fact, of human life. To exclude it wholly fromtragedy,
therefore, would be, we may say, to fail in truth.And, besides, it
is not merely a fact. That men may start acourse of events but can
neither calculate nor control it, isa tragic fact. The dramatist
may use accident so as tomake us feel this; and there are also
other dramatic usesto which it may be put. Shakespeare accordingly
admits it.On the other hand, any large admission of chance into
thetragic sequence[4] would certainly weaken, and mightdestroy, the
sense of the causal connection of character,deed, and catastrophe.
And Shakespeare really uses itvery sparingly. We seldom find
ourselves exclaiming, 'Whatan unlucky accident!' I believe most
readers would have tosearch painfully for instances. It is,
further, frequently easyto see the dramatic intention of an
accident; and somethings which look like accidents have really a
connectionwith character, and are therefore not in the full
senseaccidents. Finally, I believe it will be found that almost
allthe prominent accidents occur when the action is welladvanced
and the impression of the causal sequence istoo firmly fixed to be
impaired.
Thus it appears that these three elements in the 'action'
aresubordinate, while the dominant factor consists in deedswhich
issue from character. So that, by way of summary,we may now alter
our first statement, 'A tragedy is a storyof exceptional calamity
leading to the death of a man in
Shakespearean Tragedy 27
-
high estate,' and we may say instead (what in its turn
isone-sided, though less so), that the story is one of humanactions
producing exceptional calamity and ending in thedeath of such a
man.[5]
* * * * *
Before we leave the 'action,' however, there is anotherquestion
that may usefully be asked. Can we define this'action' further by
describing it as a conflict?
The frequent use of this idea in discussions on tragedy
isultimately due, I suppose, to the influence of Hegel's theoryon
the subject, certainly the most important theory sinceAristotle's.
But Hegel's view of the tragic conflict is not onlyunfamiliar to
English readers and difficult to expoundshortly, but it had its
origin in reflections on Greek tragedyand, as Hegel was well aware,
applies only imperfectly tothe works of Shakespeare.[6] I shall,
therefore, confinemyself to the idea of conflict in its more
general form. Inthis form it is obviously suitable to Shakespearean
tragedy;but it is vague, and I will try to make it more precise
byputting the question, Who are the combatants in thisconflict?
Not seldom the conflict may quite naturally be conceivedas lying
between two persons, of whom the hero is one; or,
Shakespearean Tragedy 28
-
more fully, as lying between two parties or groups, in oneof
which the hero is the leading figure. Or if we prefer tospeak (as
we may quite well do if we know what we areabout) of the passions,
tendencies, ideas, principles,forces, which animate these persons
or groups, we maysay that two of such passions or ideas, regarded
asanimating two persons or groups, are the combatants. Thelove of
Romeo and Juliet is in conflict with the hatred oftheir houses,
represented by various other characters. Thecause of Brutus and
Cassius struggles with that of Julius,Octavius and Antony. In
_Richard II._ the King stands onone side, Bolingbroke and his party
on the other. InMacbeth the hero and heroine are opposed to
therepresentatives of Duncan. In all these cases the greatmajority
of the dramatis personae fall without difficulty intoantagonistic
groups, and the conflict between these groupsends with the defeat
of the hero.
Yet one cannot help feeling that in at least one of thesecases,
Macbeth, there is something a little external in thisway of looking
at the action. And when we come to someother plays this feeling
increases. No doubt most of thecharacters in Hamlet, King Lear,
Othello, or Antony andCleopatra can be arranged in opposed
groups;[7] and nodoubt there is a conflict; and yet it seems
misleading todescribe this conflict as one between these groups.
Itcannot be simply this. For though Hamlet and the King are
Shakespearean Tragedy 29
-
mortal foes, yet that which engrosses our interest anddwells in
our memory at least as much as the conflictbetween them, is the
conflict within one of them. And so itis, though not in the same
degree, with Antony andCleopatra and even with _Othello_; and, in
fact, in a certainmeasure, it is so with nearly all the tragedies.
There is anoutward conflict of persons and groups, there is also
aconflict of forces in the hero's soul; and even in JuliusCaesar
and Macbeth the interest of the former can hardlybe said to exceed
that of the latter.
The truth is, that the type of tragedy in which the heroopposes
to a hostile force an undivided soul, is not theShakespearean type.
The souls of those who contend withthe hero may be thus undivided;
they generally are; but, asa rule, the hero, though he pursues his
fated way, is, atleast at some point in the action, and sometimes
at many,torn by an inward struggle; and it is frequently at
suchpoints that Shakespeare shows his most extraordinarypower. If
further we compare the earlier tragedies with thelater, we find
that it is in the latter, the maturest works, thatthis inward
struggle is most emphasised. In the last ofthem, Coriolanus, its
interest completely eclipses towardsthe close of the play that of
the outward conflict. Romeoand Juliet, _Richard III._, _Richard
II._, where the herocontends with an outward force, but
comparatively littlewith himself, are all early plays.
Shakespearean Tragedy 30
-
If we are to include the outer and the inner struggle in
aconception more definite than that of conflict in general, wemust
employ some such phrase as 'spiritual force.' This willmean
whatever forces act in the human spirit, whethergood or evil,
whether personal passion or impersonalprinciple; doubts, desires,
scruples, ideas--whatever cananimate, shake, possess, and drive a
man's soul. In aShakespearean tragedy some such forces are shown
inconflict. They are shown acting in men and generatingstrife
between them. They are also shown, less universally,but quite as
characteristically, generating disturbance andeven conflict in the
soul of the hero. Treasonous ambitionin Macbeth collides with
loyalty and patriotism in Macduffand Malcolm: here is the outward
conflict. But thesepowers or principles equally collide in the soul
of Macbethhimself: here is the inner. And neither by itself could
makethe tragedy.[8]
We shall see later the importance of this idea. Here weneed only
observe that the notion of tragedy as a conflictemphasises the fact
that action is the centre of the story,while the concentration of
interest, in the greater plays, onthe inward struggle emphasises
the fact that this action isessentially the expression of
character.
3
Shakespearean Tragedy 31
-
Let us turn now from the 'action' to the central figure in
it;and, ignoring the characteristics which distinguish theheroes
from one another, let us ask whether they have anycommon qualities
which appear to be essential to the tragiceffect.
One they certainly have. They are exceptional beings. Wehave
seen already that the hero, with Shakespeare, is aperson of high
degree or of public importance, and that hisactions or sufferings
are of an unusual kind. But this is notall. His nature also is
exceptional, and generally raises himin some respect much above the
average level ofhumanity. This does not mean that he is an
eccentric or aparagon. Shakespeare never drew monstrosities of
virtue;some of his heroes are far from being 'good'; and if hedrew
eccentrics he gave them a subordinate position in theplot. His
tragic characters are made of the stuff we findwithin ourselves and
within the persons who surroundthem. But, by an intensification of
the life which they sharewith others, they are raised above them;
and the greatestare raised so far that, if we fully realise all
that is implied intheir words and actions, we become conscious that
in reallife we have known scarcely any one resembling them.Some,
like Hamlet and Cleopatra, have genius. Others, likeOthello, Lear,
Macbeth, Coriolanus, are built on the grandscale; and desire,
passion, or will attains in them a terribleforce. In almost all we
observe a marked one-sidedness, a
Shakespearean Tragedy 32
-
predisposition in some particular direction; a totalincapacity,
in certain circumstances, of resisting the forcewhich draws in this
direction; a fatal tendency to identifythe whole being with one
interest, object, passion, or habitof mind. This, it would seem,
is, for Shakespeare, thefundamental tragic trait. It is present in
his early heroes,Romeo and Richard II., infatuated men, who
otherwise risecomparatively little above the ordinary level. It is
a fatal gift,but it carries with it a touch of greatness; and when
there isjoined to it nobility of mind, or genius, or immense
force,we realise the full power and reach of the soul, and
theconflict in which it engages acquires that magnitude whichstirs
not only sympathy and pity, but admiration, terror, andawe.
The easiest way to bring home to oneself the nature of thetragic
character is to compare it with a character of anotherkind. Dramas
like Cymbeline and the _Winter's Tale_,which might seem destined to
end tragically, but actuallyend otherwise, owe their happy ending
largely to the factthat the principal characters fail to reach
tragic dimensions.And, conversely, if these persons were put in the
place ofthe tragic heroes, the dramas in which they appearedwould
cease to be tragedies. Posthumus would never haveacted as Othello
did; Othello, on his side, would have metIachimo's challenge with
something more than words. If,like Posthumus, he had remained
convinced of his wife's
Shakespearean Tragedy 33
-
infidelity, he would not have repented her execution; if,
likeLeontes, he had come to believe that by an unjustaccusation he
had caused her death, he would never havelived on, like Leontes. In
the same way the villain Iachimohas no touch of tragic greatness.
But Iago comes nearer toit, and if Iago had slandered Imogen and
had supposed hisslanders to have led to her death, he certainly
would nothave turned melancholy and wished to die. One reasonwhy
the end of the Merchant of Venice fails to satisfy us isthat
Shylock is a tragic character, and that we cannotbelieve in his
accepting his defeat and the conditionsimposed on him. This was a
case where Shakespeare'simagination ran away with him, so that he
drew a figurewith which the destined pleasant ending would
notharmonise.
In the circumstances where we see the hero placed, histragic
trait, which is also his greatness, is fatal to him. Tomeet these
circumstances something is required which asmaller man might have
given, but which the hero cannotgive. He errs, by action or
omission; and his error, joiningwith other causes, brings on him
ruin. This is always sowith Shakespeare. As we have seen, the idea
of the tragichero as a being destroyed simply and solely by
externalforces is quite alien to him; and not less so is the idea
ofthe hero as contributing to his destruction only by acts inwhich
we see no flaw. But the fatal imperfection or error,
Shakespearean Tragedy 34
-
which is never absent, is of different kinds and degrees. Atone
extreme stands the excess and precipitancy ofRomeo, which scarcely,
if at all, diminish our regard forhim; at the other the murderous
ambition of Richard III. Inmost cases the tragic error involves no
conscious breachof right; in some (_e.g._ that of Brutus or
Othello) it isaccompanied by a full conviction of right. In Hamlet
there isa painful consciousness that duty is being neglected;
inAntony a clear knowledge that the worse of two courses isbeing
pursued; but Richard and Macbeth are the onlyheroes who do what
they themselves recognise to bevillainous. It is important to
observe that Shakespeare doesadmit such heroes,[9] and also that he
appears to feel, andexerts himself to meet, the difficulty that
arises from theiradmission. The difficulty is that the spectator
must desiretheir defeat and even their destruction; and yet this
desire,and the satisfaction of it, are not tragic
feelings.Shakespeare gives to Richard therefore a power
whichexcites astonishment, and a courage which extortsadmiration.
He gives to Macbeth a similar, though lessextraordinary, greatness,
and adds to it a conscience soterrifying in its warnings and so
maddening in itsreproaches that the spectacle of inward torment
compels ahorrified sympathy and awe which balance, at the least,
thedesire for the hero's ruin.
Shakespearean Tragedy 35
-
The tragic hero with Shakespeare, then, need not be'good,'
though generally he is 'good' and therefore at oncewins sympathy in
his error. But it is necessary that heshould have so much of
greatness that in his error and fallwe may be vividly conscious of
the possibilities of humannature.[10] Hence, in the first place, a
Shakespeareantragedy is never, like some miscalled
tragedies,depressing. No one ever closes the book with the
feelingthat man is a poor mean creature. He may be wretchedand he
may be awful, but he is not small. His lot may beheart-rending and
mysterious, but it is not contemptible.The most confirmed of cynics
ceases to be a cynic whilehe reads these plays. And with this
greatness of the tragichero (which is not always confined to him)
is connected,secondly, what I venture to describe as the centre of
thetragic impression. This central feeling is the impression
ofwaste. With Shakespeare, at any rate, the pity and fearwhich are
stirred by the tragic story seem to unite with, andeven to merge
in, a profound sense of sadness andmystery, which is due to this
impression of waste. 'What apiece of work is man,' we cry; 'so much
more beautiful andso much more terrible than we knew! Why should he
be soif this beauty and greatness only tortures itself and
throwsitself away?' We seem to have before us a type of themystery
of the whole world, the tragic fact which extendsfar beyond the
limits of tragedy. Everywhere, from thecrushed rocks beneath our
feet to the soul of man, we see
Shakespearean Tragedy 36
-
power, intelligence, life and glory, which astound us andseem to
call for our worship. And everywhere we see themperishing,
devouring one another and destroyingthemselves, often with dreadful
pain, as though they cameinto being for no other end. Tragedy is
the typical form ofthis mystery, because that greatness of soul
which itexhibits oppressed, conflicting and destroyed, is
thehighest existence in our view. It forces the mystery uponus, and
it makes us realise so vividly the worth of thatwhich is wasted
that we cannot possibly seek comfort inthe reflection that all is
vanity.
4
In this tragic world, then, where individuals, however greatthey
may be and however decisive their actions mayappear, are so
evidently not the ultimate power, what isthis power? What account
can we give of it which willcorrespond with the imaginative
impressions we receive?This will be our final question.
The variety of the answers given to this question showshow
difficult it is. And the difficulty has many sources. Mostpeople,
even among those who know Shakespeare welland come into real
contact with his mind, are inclined toisolate and exaggerate some
one aspect of the tragic fact.Some are so much influenced by their
own habitual beliefs
Shakespearean Tragedy 37
-
that they import them more or less into their interpretationof
every author who is 'sympathetic' to them. And evenwhere neither of
these causes of error appears to operate,another is present from
which it is probably impossiblewholly to escape. What I mean is
this. Any answer we giveto the question proposed ought to
correspond with, or torepresent in terms of the understanding, our
imaginativeand emotional experience in reading the tragedies.
Wehave, of course, to do our best by study and effort to makethis
experience true to Shakespeare; but, that done to thebest of our
ability, the experience is the matter to beinterpreted, and the
test by which the interpretation mustbe tried. But it is extremely
hard to make out exactly whatthis experience is, because, in the
very effort to make itout, our reflecting mind, full of everyday
ideas, is alwaystending to transform it by the application of these
ideas,and so to elicit a result which, instead of representing
thefact, conventionalises it. And the consequence is not
onlymistaken theories; it is that many a man will declare that
hefeels in reading a tragedy what he never really felt, whilehe
fails to recognise what he actually did feel. It is not likelythat
we shall escape all these dangers in our effort to findan answer to
the question regarding the tragic world andthe ultimate power in
it.
It will be agreed, however, first, that this question must notbe
answered in 'religious' language. For although this or
Shakespearean Tragedy 38
-
that dramatis persona may speak of gods or of God, of
evilspirits or of Satan, of heaven and of hell, and although
thepoet may show us ghosts from another world, these ideasdo not
materially influence his representation of life, nor arethey used
to throw light on the mystery of its tragedy. TheElizabethan drama
was almost wholly secular; and whileShakespeare was writing he
practically confined his view tothe world of non-theological
observation and thought, sothat he represents it substantially in
one and the same waywhether the period of the story is
pre-Christian orChristian.[11] He looked at this 'secular' world
most intentlyand seriously; and he painted it, we cannot but
conclude,with entire fidelity, without the wish to enforce an
opinion ofhis own, and, in essentials, without regard to
anyone'shopes, fears, or beliefs. His greatness is largely due to
thisfidelity in a mind of extraordinary power; and if, as a
privateperson, he had a religious faith, his tragic view can
hardlyhave been in contradiction with this faith, but must havebeen
included in it, and supplemented, not abolished, byadditional
ideas.
Two statements, next, may at once be made regarding thetragic
fact as he represents it: one, that it is and remains tous
something piteous, fearful and mysterious; the other,that the
representation of it does not leave us crushed,rebellious or
desperate. These statements will beaccepted, I believe, by any
reader who is in touch with
Shakespearean Tragedy 39
-
Shakespeare's mind and can observe his own. Indeedsuch a reader
is rather likely to complain that they arepainfully obvious. But if
they are true as well as obvious,something follows from them in
regard to our presentquestion.
From the first it follows that the ultimate power in the
tragicworld is not adequately described as a law or order whichwe
can see to be just and benevolent,--as, in that sense, a'moral
order': for in that case the spectacle of suffering andwaste could
not seem to us so fearful and mysterious as itdoes. And from the
second it follows that this ultimatepower is not adequately
described as a fate, whethermalicious and cruel, or blind and
indifferent to humanhappiness and goodness: for in that case the
spectaclewould leave us desperate or rebellious. Yet one or other
ofthese two ideas will be found to govern most accounts
ofShakespeare's tragic view or world. These accounts isolateand
exaggerate single aspects, either the aspect of actionor that of
suffering; either the close and unbrokenconnection of character,
will, deed and catastrophe, which,taken alone, shows the individual
simply as sinningagainst, or failing to conform to, the moral order
anddrawing his just doom on his own head; or else thatpressure of
outward forces, that sway of accident, andthose blind and agonised
struggles, which, taken alone,show him as the mere victim of some
power which cares
Shakespearean Tragedy 40
-
neither for his sins nor for his pain. Such views contradictone
another, and no third view can unite them; but theseveral aspects
from whose isolation and exaggerationthey spring are both present
in the fact, and a view whichwould be true to the fact and to the
whole of ourimaginative experience must in some way combine
theseaspects.
Let us begin, then, with the idea of fatality and glance atsome
of the impressions which give rise to it, withoutasking at present
whether this idea is their natural or fittingexpression. There can
be no doubt that they do arise andthat they ought to arise. If we
do not feel at times that thehero is, in some sense, a doomed man;
that he and othersdrift struggling to destruction like helpless
creatures borneon an irresistible flood towards a cataract; that,
faulty asthey may be, their fault is far from being the sole
orsufficient cause of all they suffer; and that the power fromwhich
they cannot escape is relentless and immovable, wehave failed to
receive an essential part of the full tragiceffect.
The sources of these impressions are various, and I willrefer
only to a few. One of them is put into words byShakespeare himself
when he makes the player-king inHamlet say:
Shakespearean Tragedy 41
-
Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own;
'their ends' are the issues or outcomes of our thoughts,
andthese, says the speaker, are not our own. The tragic worldis a
world of action, and action is the translation of thoughtinto
reality. We see men and women confidently attemptingit. They strike
into the existing order of things in pursuanceof their ideas. But
what they achieve is not what theyintended; it is terribly unlike
it. They understand nothing,we say to ourselves, of the world on
which they operate.They fight blindly in the dark, and the power
that worksthrough them makes them the instrument of a design
whichis not theirs. They act freely, and yet their action bindsthem
hand and foot. And it makes no difference whetherthey meant well or
ill. No one could mean better thanBrutus, but he contrives misery
for his country and deathfor himself. No one could mean worse than
Iago, and hetoo is caught in the web he spins for others.
Hamlet,recoiling from the rough duty of revenge, is pushed
intoblood-guiltiness he never dreamed of, and forced at last onthe
revenge he could not will. His adversary's murders, andno less his
adversary's remorse, bring about the oppositeof what they sought.
Lear follows an old man's whim, halfgenerous, half selfish; and in
a moment it looses all thepowers of darkness upon him. Othello
agonises over anempty fiction, and, meaning to execute solemn
justice,butchers innocence and strangles love. They understand
Shakespearean Tragedy 42
-
themselves no better than the world about them.Coriolanus thinks
that his heart is iron, and it melts likesnow before a fire. Lady
Macbeth, who thought she coulddash out her own child's brains,
finds herself hounded todeath by the smell of a stranger's blood.
Her husbandthinks that to gain a crown he would jump the life to
come,and finds that the crown has brought him all the horrors
ofthat life. Everywhere, in this tragic world, man's
thought,translated into act, is transformed into the opposite of
itself.His act, the movement of a few ounces of matter in amoment
of time, becomes a monstrous flood whichspreads over a kingdom. And
whatsoever he dreams ofdoing, he achieves that which he least
dreamed of, his owndestruction.
All this makes us feel the blindness and helplessness ofman. Yet
by itself it would hardly suggest the idea of fate,because it shows
man as in some degree, however slight,the cause of his own undoing.
But other impressions cometo aid it. It is aided by everything
which makes us feel thata man is, as we say, terribly unlucky; and
of this there is,even in Shakespeare, not a little. Here come in
some of theaccidents already considered, Juliet's waking from
hertrance a minute too late, Desdemona's loss of herhandkerchief at
the only moment when the loss would havemattered, that
insignificant delay which cost Cordelia's life.Again, men act, no
doubt, in accordance with their
Shakespearean Tragedy 43
-
characters; but what is it that brings them just the oneproblem
which is fatal to them and would be easy toanother, and sometimes
brings it to them just when theyare least fitted to face it? How is
it that Othello comes to bethe companion of the one man in the
world who is at onceable enough, brave enough, and vile enough to
ensnarehim? By what strange fatality does it happen that Lear
hassuch daughters and Cordelia such sisters? Even characteritself
contributes to these feelings of fatality. How couldmen escape, we
cry, such vehement propensities as driveRomeo, Antony, Coriolanus,
to their doom? And why is itthat a man's virtues help to destroy
him, and that hisweakness or defect is so intertwined with
everything that isadmirable in him that we can hardly separate them
even inimagination?
If we find in Shakespeare's tragedies the source ofimpressions
like these, it is important, on the other hand, tonotice what we do
not find there. We find practically notrace of fatalism in its more
primitive, crude and obviousforms. Nothing, again, makes us think
of the actions andsufferings of the persons as somehow arbitrarily
fixedbeforehand without regard to their feelings, thoughts
andresolutions. Nor, I believe, are the facts ever so presentedthat
it seems to us as if the supreme power, whatever itmay be, had a
special spite against a family or anindividual. Neither, lastly, do
we receive the impression
Shakespearean Tragedy 44
-
(which, it must be observed, is not purely fatalistic) that
afamily, owing to some hideous crime or impiety in earlydays, is
doomed in later days to continue a career ofportentous calamities
and sins. Shakespeare, indeed, doesnot appear to have taken much
interest in heredity, or tohave attached much importance to it.
(See, however,'heredity' in the Index.)
What, then, is this 'fate' which the impressions
alreadyconsidered lead us to describe as the ultimate power in
thetragic world? It appears to be a mythological expression forthe
whole system or order, of which the individualcharacters form an
inconsiderable and feeble part; whichseems to determine, far more
than they, their nativedispositions and their circumstances, and,
through these,their action; which is so vast and complex that they
canscarcely at all understand it or control its workings; andwhich
has a nature so definite and fixed that whateverchanges take place
in it produce other changes inevitablyand without regard to men's
desires and regrets. Andwhether this system or order is best called
by the name offate or no,[12] it can hardly be denied that it does
appearas the ultimate power in the tragic world, and that it
hassuch characteristics as these. But the name 'fate' may
beintended to imply something more--to imply that this orderis a
blank necessity, totally regardless alike of human wealand of the
difference between good and evil or right and
Shakespearean Tragedy 45
-
wrong. And such an implication many readers would atonce reject.
They would maintain, on the contrary, that thisorder shows
characteristics of quite another kind fromthose which made us give
it the name of fate,characteristics which certainly should not
induce us toforget those others, but which would lead us to
describe itas a moral order and its necessity as a moral
necessity.
5
Let us turn, then, to this idea. It brings into the light
thoseaspects of the tragic fact which the idea of fate throws
intothe shade. And the argument which leads to it in itssimplest
form may be stated briefly thus: 'Whatever may besaid of accidents,
circumstances and the like, humanaction is, after all, presented to
us as the central fact intragedy, and also as the main cause of the
catastrophe.That necessity which so much impresses us is, after
all,chiefly the necessary connection of actions andconsequences.
For these actions we, without even raisinga question on the
subject, hold the agents responsible; andthe tragedy would
disappear for us if we did not. Thecritical action is, in greater
or less degree, wrong or bad.The catastrophe is, in the main, the
return of this action onthe head of the agent. It is an example of
justice; and thatorder which, present alike within the agents and
outsidethem, infallibly brings it about, is therefore just. The
rigour
Shakespearean Tragedy 46
-
of its justice is terrible, no doubt, for a tragedy is a
terriblestory; but, in spite of fear and pity, we acquiesce,
becauseour sense of justice is satisfied.'
Now, if this view is to hold good, the 'justice' of which
itspeaks must be at once distinguished from what is called'poetic
justice.' 'Poetic justice' means that prosperity andadversity are
distributed in proportion to the merits of theagents. Such 'poetic
justice' is in flagrant contradiction withthe facts of life, and it
is absent from Shakespeare's tragicpicture of life; indeed, this
very absence is a ground ofconstant complaint on the part of Dr.
Johnson. [Greek:Drasanti pathein], 'the doer must suffer'--this we
find inShakespeare. We also find that villainy never
remainsvictorious and prosperous at the last. But an assignment
ofamounts of happiness and misery, an assignment even oflife and
death, in proportion to merit, we do not find. Noone who thinks of
Desdemona and Cordelia; or whoremembers that one end awaits Richard
III. and Brutus,Macbeth and Hamlet; or who asks himself which
sufferedmost, Othello or Iago; will ever accuse Shakespeare
ofrepresenting the ultimate power as 'poetically' just.
And we must go further. I venture to say that it is a mistaketo
use at all these terms of justice and merit or desert. Andthis for
two reasons. In the first place, essential as it is torecognise the
connection between act and consequence,
Shakespearean Tragedy 47
-
and natural as it may seem in some cases (_e.g._Macbeth's) to
say that the doer only gets what hedeserves, yet in very many cases
to say this would bequite unnatural. We might not object to the
statement thatLear deserved to suffer for his folly, selfishness
andtyranny; but to assert that he deserved to suffer what hedid
suffer is to do violence not merely to language but toany healthy
moral sense. It is, moreover, to obscure thetragic fact that the
consequences of action cannot belimited to that which would appear
to us to follow 'justly'from them. And, this being so, when we call
the order ofthe tragic world just, we are either using the word in
somevague and unexplained sense, or we are going beyondwhat is
shown us of this order, and are appealing to faith.
But, in the second place, the ideas of justice and desertare, it
seems to me, in all cases--even those of Richard III.and of Macbeth
and Lady Macbeth--untrue to ourimaginative experience. When we are
immersed in atragedy, we feel towards dispositions, actions, and
personssuch emotions as attraction and repulsion, pity,
wonder,fear, horror, perhaps hatred; but we do not judge. This is
apoint of view which emerges only when, in reading a play,we slip,
by our own fault or the dramatist's, from the tragicposition, or
when, in thinking about the play afterwards, wefall back on our
everyday legal and moral notions. Buttragedy does not belong, any
more than religion belongs,
Shakespearean Tragedy 48
-
to the sphere of these notions; neither does the
imaginativeattitude in presence of it. While we are in its world
wewatch what is, seeing that so it happened and must havehappened,
feeling that it is piteous, dreadful, awful,mysterious, but neither
passing sentence on the agents,nor asking whether the behaviour of
the ultimate powertowards them is just. And, therefore, the use of
suchlanguage in attempts to render our imaginative experiencein
terms of the understanding is, to say the least, full
ofdanger.[13]
Let us attempt then to re-state the idea that the ultimatepower
in the tragic world is a moral order. Let us put asidethe ideas of
justice and merit, and speak simply of goodand evil. Let us
understand by these words, primarily,moral good and evil, but also
everything else in humanbeings which we take to be excellent or the
reverse. Let usunderstand the statement that the ultimate power or
orderis 'moral' to mean that it does not show itself indifferent
togood and evil, or equally favourable or unfavourable toboth, but
shows itself akin to good and alien from evil. And,understanding
the statement thus, let us ask what groundsit has in the tragic
fact as presented by Shakespeare.
Here, as in dealing with the grounds on which the idea offate
rests, I choose only two or three out of many. And themost
important is this. In Shakespearean tragedy the main
Shakespearean Tragedy 49
-
source of the convulsion which produces suffering anddeath is
never good: good contributes to this convulsiononly from its tragic
implication with its opposite in one andthe same character. The
main source, on the contrary, is inevery case evil; and, what is
more (though this seems tohave been little noticed), it is in
almost every case evil inthe fullest sense, not mere imperfection
but plain moralevil. The love of Romeo and Juliet conducts them to
deathonly because of the senseless hatred of their houses.Guilty
ambition, seconded by diabolic malice and issuing inmurder, opens
the action in Macbeth. Iago is the mainsource of the convulsion in
_Othello_; Goneril, Regan andEdmund in King Lear. Even when this
plain moral evil isnot the obviously prime source within the play,
it liesbehind it: the situation with which Hamlet has to deal
hasbeen formed by adultery and murder. Julius Caesar is theonly
tragedy in which one is even tempted to find anexception to this
rule. And the inference is obvious. If it ischiefly evil that
violently disturbs the order of the world, thisorder cannot be
friendly to evil or indifferent between eviland good, any more than
a body which is convulsed bypoison is friendly to it or indifferent
to the distinctionbetween poison and food.
Again, if we confine our attention to the hero, and to
thosecases where the gross and palpable evil is not in him
butelsewhere, we find that the comparatively innocent hero
Shakespearean Tragedy 50
-
still shows some marked imperfection ordefect,--irresolution,
precipitancy, pride, credulousness,excessive simplicity, excessive
susceptibility to sexualemotions, and the like. These defects or
imperfections arecertainly, in the wide sense of the word, evil,
and theycontribute decisively to the conflict and catastrophe.
Andthe inference is again obvious. The ultimate power whichshows
itself disturbed by this evil and reacts against it,must have a
nature alien to it. Indeed its reaction is sovehement and
'relentless' that it would seem to be bent onnothing short of good
in perfection, and to be ruthless in itsdemand for it.
To this must be added another fact, or another aspect ofthe same
fact. Evil exhibits itself everywhere as somethingnegative, barren,
weakening, destructive, a principle ofdeath. It isolates,
disunites, and tends to annihilate not onlyits opposite but itself.
That which keeps the evil man[14]prosperous, makes him succeed,
even permits him toexist, is the good in him (I do not mean only
the obviously'moral' good). When the evil in him masters the good
andhas its way, it destroys other people through him, but italso
destroys him. At the close of the struggle he hasvanished, and has
left behind him nothing that can stand.What remains is a family, a
city, a country, exhausted, paleand feeble, but alive through the
principle of good whichanimates it; and, within it, individuals
who, if they have not
Shakespearean Tragedy 51
-
the brilliance or greatness of the tragic character, still
havewon our respect and confidence. And the inference wouldseem
clear. If existence in an order depends on good, andif the presence
of evil is hostile to such existence, the innerbeing or soul of
this order must be akin to good.
These are aspects of the tragic world at least as clearlymarked
as those which, taken alone, suggest the idea offate. And the idea
which they in their turn, when takenalone, may suggest, is that of
an order which does notindeed award 'poetic justice,' but which
reacts through thenecessity of its own 'moral' nature both against
attacksmade upon it and against failure to conform to it.
Tragedy,on this view, is the exhibition of that convulsive
reaction;and the fact that the spectacle does not leave us
rebelliousor desperate is due to a more or less distinct
perceptionthat the tragic suffering and death arise from collision,
notwith a fate or blank power, but with a moral power, a powerakin
to all that we admire and revere in the charactersthemselves. This
perception produces something like afeeling of acquiescence in the
catastrophe, though itneither leads us to pass judgment on the
characters nordiminishes the pity, the fear, and the sense of
waste, whichtheir struggle, suffering and fall evoke. And, finally,
thisview seems quite able to do justice to those aspects of
thetragic fact which give rise to the idea of fate. They
wouldappear as various expressions of the fact that the moral
Shakespearean Tragedy 52
-
order acts not capriciously or like a human being, but fromthe
necessity of its nature, or, if we prefer the phrase, bygeneral
laws,--a necessity or law which of course knows noexception and is
as 'ruthless' as fate.
It is impossible to deny to this view a large measure oftruth.
And yet without some amendment it can hardlysatisfy. For it does
not include the whole of the facts, andtherefore does not wholly
correspond with the impressionsthey produce. Let it be granted that
the system or orderwhich shows itself omnipotent against
individuals is, in thesense explained, moral. Still--at any rate
for the eye ofsight--the evil against which it asserts itself, and
thepersons whom this evil inhabits, are not really somethingoutside
the order, so that they can attack it or fail toconform to it; they
are within it and a part of it. It itselfproduces them,--produces
Iago as well as Desdemona,Iago's cruelty as well as Iago's courage.
It is not poisoned,it poisons itself. Doubtless it shows by its
violent reactionthat the poison is poison, and that its health lies
in good.But one significant fact cannot remove another, and
thespectacle we witness scarcely warrants the assertion thatthe
order is responsible for the good in Desdemona, butIago for the
evil in Iago. If we make this assertion we makeit on grounds other
than the facts as presented inShakespeare's tragedies.
Shakespearean Tragedy 53
-
Nor does the idea of a moral order asserting itself
againstattack or want of conformity answer in full to our
feelingsregarding the tragic character. We do not think of
Hamletmerely as failing to meet its demand, of Antony as
merelysinning against it, or even of Macbeth as simply attackingit.
What we feel corresponds quite as much to the idea thatthey are its
parts, expressions, products; that in their defector evil it is
untrue to its soul of goodness, and falls intoconflict and
collision with itself; that, in making them sufferand waste
themselves, it suffers and wastes itself; and thatwhen, to save its
life and regain peace from this intestinalstruggle, it casts them
out, it has lost a part of its ownsubstance,--a part more dangerous
and unquiet, but farmore valuable and nearer to its heart, than
that whichremains,--a Fortinbras, a Malcolm, an Octavius. There
isno tragedy in its expulsion of evil: the tragedy is that
thisinvolves the waste of good.
Thus we are left at last with an idea showing two sides
oraspects which we can neither separate nor reconcile. Thewhole or
order against which the individual part showsitself powerless seems
to be animated by a passion forperfection: we cannot otherwise
explain its behaviourtowards evil. Yet it appears to engender this
evil withinitself, and in its effort to overcome and expel it it
isagonised with pain, and driven to mutilate its ownsubstance and
to lose not only evil but priceless good. That
Shakespearean Tragedy 54
-
this idea, though very different from the idea of a blankfate,
is no solution of the riddle of life is obvious; but whyshould we
expect it to be such a solution? Shakespearewas not attempting to
justify the ways of God to men, or toshow the universe as a Divine
Comedy. He was writingtragedy, and tragedy would not be tragedy if
it were not apainful mystery. Nor can he be said even to point
distinctly,like some writers of tragedy, in any direction where
asolution might lie. We find a few references to gods or God,to the
influence of the stars, to another life: some of themcertainly, all
of them perhaps, merely dramatic--appropriateto the person from
whose lips they fall. A ghost comes fromPurgatory to impart a
secret out of the reach of itshearer--who presently meditates on
the question whetherthe sleep of death is dreamless. Accidents once
or twiceremind us strangely of the words, 'There's a divinity
thatshapes our ends.' More important are other
impressions.Sometimes from the very furnace of affliction a
convictionseems borne to us that somehow, if we could see it,
thisagony counts as nothing against the heroism and lovewhich
appear in it and thrill our hearts. Sometimes we aredriven to cry
out that these mighty or heavenly spirits whoperish are too great
for the little space in which they move,and that they vanish not
into nothingness but into freedom.Sometimes from these sources and
from others comes apresentiment, formless but haunting and even
profound,that all the fury of conflict, with its waste and woe, is
less
Shakespearean Tragedy 55
-
than half the truth, even an illusion, 'such stuff as dreamsare
made on.' But these faint and scattered intimations thatthe tragic
world, being but a fragment of a whole beyondour vision, must needs
be a contradiction and no ultimatetruth, avail nothing to interpret
the mystery. We remainconfronted with the inexplicable fact, or the
no lessinexplicable appearance, of a world travailing
forperfection, but bringing to birth, together with gloriousgood,
an evil which it is able to overcome only byself-torture and
self-waste. And this fact or appearance istragedy.[15]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: Julius Caesar is not an exception to this
rule.Caesar, whose murder comes in the Third Act, is in asense the
dominating figure in the story, but Brutus is the'hero.']
[Footnote 2: Timon of Athens, we have seen, was probablynot
designed by Shakespeare, but even Timon is noexception to the rule.
The sub-plot is concerned withAlcibiades and his army, and Timon
himself is treated bythe Senate as a man of great importance. Arden
ofFeversham and A Yorkshire Tragedy would certainly beexceptions to
the rule; but I assume that neither of them isShakespeare's; and if
either is, it belongs to a different
Shakespearean Tragedy 56
-
species from his admitted tragedies. See, on this
species,Symonds, _Shakspere's Predecessors_, ch. xi.]
[Footnote 3: Even a deed would, I think, be counted
an'accident,' if it were the deed of a very minor person
whosecharacter had not been indicated; because such a deedwould not
issue from the little world to which the dramatisthad confined our
attention.]
[Footnote 4: Comedy stands in a different position. Thetricks
played by chance often form a principal part of thecomic
action.]
[Footnote 5: It may be observed that the influence of thethree
elements just considered is to strengthen thetendency, produced by
the sufferings considered first, toregard the tragic persons as
passive rather than asagents.]
[Footnote 6: An account of Hegel's view may be found inOxford
Lectures on Poetry.]
[Footnote 7: The reader, however, will find
considerabledifficulty in placing some very important characters in
theseand other plays. I will give only two or three
illustrations.Edgar is clearly not on the same side as Edmund, and
yetit seems awkward to range him on Gloster's side when
Shakespearean Tragedy 57
-
Gloster wishes to put him to death. Ophelia is in love
withHamlet, but how can she be said to be of Hamlet's partyagainst
the King and Polonius, or of their party againstHamlet? Desdemona
worships Othello, yet it sounds oddto say that Othello is on the
same side with a person whomhe insults, strikes and murders.]
[Footnote 8: I have given names to the 'spiritual forces'
inMacbeth merely to illustrate the idea, and without anypretension
to adequacy. Perhaps, in view of someinterpretations of
Shakespeare's plays, it will be as well toadd that I do not dream
of suggesting that in any of hisdramas Shakespeare imagined two
abstract principles orpassions conflicting, and incorporated them
in persons; orthat there is any necessity for a reader to define
for himselfthe particular forces which conflict in a given
case.]
[Footnote 9: Aristotle apparently would exclude them.]
[Footnote 10: Richard II. is perhaps an exception, and Imust
confess that to me he is scarcely a tragic character,and that, if
he is nevertheless a tragic figure, he is so onlybecause his fall
from prosperity to adversity is so great.]
[Footnote 11: I say substantially; but the concludingremarks on
Hamlet will modify a little the statementsabove.]
Shakespearean Tragedy 58
-
[Footnote 12: I have raised no objection to the use of theidea
of fate, because it occurs so often both inconversation and in
books about Shakespeare's tragediesthat I must suppose it to be
natural to many readers. Yet Idoubt whether it would be so if Greek
tragedy had neverbeen written; and I must in candour confess that
to me itdoes not often occur while I am reading, or when I havejust
read, a tragedy of Shakespeare. Wordsworth's lines,for example,
about
poor humanity's afflicted will Struggling in vain with
ruthlessdestiny
do not represent the impression I receive; much less doimages
which compare man to a puny creature helpless inthe claws of a bird
of prey. The reader should examinehimself closely on this
matter.]
[Footnote 13: It is dangerous, I think, in reference to
allreally good tragedies, but I am dealing here only
withShakespeare's. In not a few Greek tragedies it is
almostinevitable that we should think of justice and retribution,
notonly because the dramatis personae often speak of them,but also
because there is something casuistical about thetragic problem
itself. The poet treats the story in such away that the question,
Is the hero doing right or wrong? isalmost forced upon us. But this
is not so with Shakespeare.
Shakespearean Tragedy 59
-
Julius Caesar is probably the only one of his tragedies inwhich
the question suggests itself to us, and this is one ofthe reasons
why that play has something of a classic air.Even here, if we ask
the question, we have no doubt at allabout the answer.]
[Footnote 14: It is most essential to remember that an evilman
is much more than the evil in him. I may add that inthis paragraph
I have, for the sake of clearness,considered evil in its most
pronounced form; but what issaid would apply, mutatis mutandis, to
evil as imperfection,etc.]
[Footnote 15: Partly in order not to anticipate laterpassages, I
abstained from treating fully here the questionwhy we feel, at the
death of the tragic hero, not only painbut also reconciliation and
sometimes even exultation. As Icannot at present make good this
defect, I would ask thereader to refer to the word Reconciliation
in the Index. Seealso, in Oxford Lectures on Poetry, _Hegel's
Theory ofTragedy_, especially pp. 90, 91.]
LECTURE II
CONSTRUCTION IN SHAKESPEARE'S TRAGEDIES
Shakespearean Tragedy 60
-
Having discussed the substance of a Shakespeareantragedy, we
should naturally go on to examine the form.And under this head many
things might be included; forexample, Shakespeare's methods of
characterisation, hislanguage, his versification, the construction
of his plots. Iintend, however, to speak only of the last of these
subjects,which has been somewhat neglected;[16] and, asconstruction
is a more or less technical matter, I shall addsome general remarks
on Shakespeare as an artist.
1
As a Shakespearean tragedy represents a conflict whichterminates
in a catastrophe, any such tragedy may roughlybe divided into three
parts. The first of these sets forth orexpounds the situation,[17]
or state of affairs, out of whichthe conflict arises; and it may,
therefore, be called theExposition. The second deals with the
definite beginning,the growth and the vicissitudes of the conflict.
It formsaccordingly the bulk of the play, comprising the
Second,Third and Fourth Acts, and usually a part of the First and
apart of the Fifth. The final section of the tragedy shows theissue
of the conflict in a catastrophe.[18]
The application of this scheme of division is naturally moreor
less arbitrary. The first part glides into the second, andthe
second into the third, and there may often be difficulty
Shakespearean Tragedy 61
-
in drawing the lines between them. But it is still harder
todivide spring from summer, and summer from autumn; andyet spring
is spring, and summer summer.
The main business of the Exposition, which we willconsider
first, is to introduce us into a little world ofpersons; to show us
their positions in life, theircircumstances, their relations to one
another, and perhapssomething of their characters; and to leave us
keenlyinterested in the question what will come out of
thiscondition of things. We are left thus expectant, not
merelybecause some of the persons interest us at once, but
alsobecause their situation in regard to one another points
todifficulties in the future. This situation is not one
ofconflict,[19] but it threatens conflict. For example, we seefirst
the hatred of the Montagues and Capulets; and thenwe see Romeo
ready to fall violently in love; and then wehear talk of a marriage
between Juliet and Paris; but theexposition is not complete, and
the conflict has notdefinitely begun to arise, till, in the last
scene of the FirstAct, Romeo the Montague sees Juliet the Capulet
andbecomes her slave.
The dramatist's chief difficulty in the exposition is
obvious,and it is illustrated clearly enough in the plays
ofunpractised writers; for example, in Remorse, and even inThe
Cenci. He has to impart to the audience a quantity of
Shakespearean Tragedy 62
-
information about matters of which they generally knownothing
and never know all that is necessary for hispurpose.[20] But the
process of merely acquiringinformation is unpleasant, and the
direct imparting of it isundramatic. Unless he uses a prologue,
therefore, he mustconceal from his auditors the fact that they are
beinginformed, and must tell them what he wants them to knowby
means which are interesting on their own account.These means, with
Shakespeare, are not only speechesbut actions and events. From the
very beginning of theplay, though the conflict has not arisen,
things arehappening and being done which in some degree
arrest,startle, and excite; and in a few scenes we have masteredthe
situation of affairs without perceiving the dramatist'sdesigns upon
us. Not that this is always so withShakespeare. In the opening
scene of his early Comedy ofErrors, and in the opening speech of
_Richard III._, we feelthat the speakers are addressing us; and in
the secondscene of the Tempest (for Shakespeare grew at last
rathernegligent of technique) the purpose of Prospero's
longexplanation to Miranda is palpable. But in generalShakespeare's
expositions are masterpieces.[21]
His usual plan in tragedy is to begin with a short scene, orpart
of a scene, either full of life and stir, or in some otherway
arresting. Then, having secured a hearing, heproceeds to
conversations at a lower pitch, accompanied
Shakespearean Tragedy 63
-
by little action but conveying much information. Forexample,
Romeo and Juliet opens with a street-fight, JuliusCaesar and
Coriolanus with a crowd in commotion; andwhen this excitement has
had its effect on the audience,there follow quiet speeches, in
which the cause of theexcitement, and so a great part of the
situation, aredisclosed. In Hamlet and Macbeth this scheme
isemployed with great boldness. In Hamlet the firstappearance of
the Ghost occurs at the fortieth line, andwith such effect that
Shakespeare can afford to introduceat once a conversation which
explains part of the state ofaffairs at Elsinore; and the second
appearance, havingagain increased the tension, is followed by a
long scene,which contains no action but introduces almost all
thedramatis personae and adds the information left wanting.The
opening of Macbeth is even more remarkable, forthere is probably no
parallel to its first scene, where thesenses and imagination are
assaulted by a storm ofthunder and supernatural alarm. This scene
is only elevenlines long, but its influence is so great that the
next cansafely be occupied with a mere report of
Macbeth'sbattles,--a narrative which would have won much
lessattention if it had opened the play.
When Shakespeare begins his exposition thus he generallyat first
makes people talk about the hero, but keeps thehero himself for
some time out of sight, so that we await his
Shakespearean Tragedy 64
-
entrance with curiosity, and sometimes with anxiety. Onthe other
hand, if the play opens with a quiet conversation,this is usually
brief, and then at once the hero enters andtakes action of some
decided kind. Nothing, for example,can be less like the beginning
of Macbeth than that of KingLear. The tone is pitched so low that
the conversationbetween Kent, Gloster, and Edmund is written in
prose. Butat the thirty-fourth line it is broken off by the
entrance ofLear and his court, and without delay the King proceeds
tohis fatal division of the kingdom.
This tragedy illustrates another practice of Shakespeare's.King
Lear has a secondary plot, that which concernsGloster and his two
sons. To make the beginning of thisplot quite clear, and to mark it
off from the main action,Shakespeare gives it a separate
exposition. The greatscene of the division of Britain and the
rejection of Cordeliaand Kent is followed by the second scene, in
which Glosterand his two sons appear alone, and the beginning
ofEdmund's design is disclosed. In Hamlet, though the plot
issingle, there is a little group of characters possessing acertain
independent interest,--Polonius, his son, and hisdaughter; and so
the third scene is devoted wholly to them.And again, in Othello,
since Roderigo is to occupy apeculiar position almost throughout
the action, he isintroduced at once, alone with Iago, and his
position isexplained before the other characters are allowed to
Shakespearean Tragedy 65
-
appear.
But why should Iago open the play? Or, if this seems
toopresumptuous a question, let us put it in the form, What isthe
effect of his opening the play? It is that we receive atthe very
outset a strong impression of the force which is toprove fatal to
the hero's happiness, so that, when we seethe hero himself, the
shadow of fate already rests uponhim. And an effect of this kind is
to be noticed in othertragedies. We are made conscious at once of
some powerwhich is to influence the whole action to the
hero'sundoing. In Macbeth we see and hear the Witches, inHamlet the
Ghost. In the first scene of Julius Caesar and ofCoriolanus those
qualities of the crowd are vividly shownwhich render hopeless the
enterprise of the one hero andwreck the ambition of the other. It
is the same with thehatred between the rival houses in Romeo and
Juliet, andwith Antony's infatuated passion. We realise them at
theend of the first page, and are almost ready to regard thehero as
doomed. Often, again, at one or more pointsduring the exposition
this feeling is reinforced by someexpression that has an ominous
effect. The first words wehear from Macbeth, 'So foul and fair a
day I have not seen,'echo, though he knows it not, the last words
we heard fromthe Witches, 'Fair is foul, and foul is fair.' Romeo,
on hisway with his friends to the banquet, where he is to seeJuliet
for the first time, tells Mercutio that he has had a
Shakespearean Tragedy 66
-
dream. What the dream was we never learn, for Mercutiodoes not
care to know, and breaks into his speech aboutQueen Mab; but we can
guess its nature from Romeo's lastspeech in the scene:
My mind misgives Some consequence yet hanging in thestars Shall
bitterly begin his fearful date With this night'srevels.
When Brabantio, forced to acquiesce in his daughter'sstolen
marriage, turns, as he leaves the council-chamber,to Othello, with
the warning,
Look to her, Moor, if thou hast eyes to see; She hasdeceived her
father, and may thee,
this warning, and no less Othello's answer, 'My life uponher
faith,' make our hearts sink. The whole of the comingstory seems to
be prefigured in Antony's muttered words (I.ii. 120):
These strong Egyptian fetters I must break, Or lose myselfin
dotage;
and, again, in Hamlet's weary sigh, following so soon onthe
passionate resolution stirred by the message of theGhost:
Shakespearean Tragedy 67
-
The time is out of joint. Oh cursed spite, That ever I wasborn
to set it right.
These words occur at a point (the end of the First Act)which may
be held to fall either within the exposition orbeyond it. I should
take the former view, though suchquestions, as we saw at starting,
can hardly be decidedwith certainty. The dimensions of this first
section of atragedy depend on a variety of causes, of which the
chiefseems to be the comparative simplicity or complexity of
thesituation from which the conflict arises. Where this issimple
the exposition is short, as in Julius Caesar andMacbeth. Where it
is complicated the exposition requiresmore space, as in Romeo and
Juliet, Hamlet, and KingLear. Its completion is generally marked in
the mind of thereader by a feeling that the action it contains is
for themoment complete but has left a problem. The lovers havemet,
but their families are at deadly enmity; the hero seemsat the
height of success, but has admitted the thought ofmurdering his
sovereign; the old king has divided hiskingdom between two
hypocritical daughters, and hasrejected his true child; the hero
has acknowledged asacred duty of revenge, but is weary of life: and
we ask,What will come of this? Sometimes, I may add, a certaintime
is supposed to elapse before the events which answerour question
make their appearance and the conflictbegins; in King Lear, for
instance, about a fortnight; in
Shakespearean Tragedy 68
-
Hamlet about two months.
2
We come now to the conflict itself. And here one or
twopreliminary remarks are necessary. In the first place, itmust be
remembered that our point of view in examiningthe construction of a
play will not always coincide with thatwhich we occupy in thinking
of its whole dramatic effect.For example, that struggle in the
hero's soul whichsometimes accompanies the outward struggle is of
thehighest importance for the total effect of a tragedy; but it
isnot always necessary or desirable to consider it when thequestion
is merely one of construction. And this is natural.The play is
meant primarily for the theatre; and theatricallythe