The third period

During the third period of his literary career, from 1600 to 1608, Shakespeare wrote the great tragedies that were the peak of his achievement, and made him truly immortal.

We can't state the reason for it definitely, but we know for certain that approximately at the turn of the century the world outlook of Shakespeare radically changed. The joyous spirit of his early plays was gone forever, even the unclassifiable plays of the third period, which are usually called comedies, are bitter and produce an impression, strong, though far from pleasant. During the same period he became a consummate master of tragedy, creating the finest examples of the genre. His depictions of human character and psychology are unsurpassed.

In the Middle Ages a tragedy meant a literary work (not necessarily a play) dealing with the hero's transition from fortune to misfortune and ending with his death. Some Elizabethan tragedies also fall into this category. Shakespeare brought something new to the tragedy; this new element was first introduced by Marlowe, but it was Shakespeare who carried it to perfection. The hero of any Shakespearian tragedy perishes by reason of some trait of character that makes him either prefer some positive ideal to life, or else makes him betray an ideal and hence, meet his doom. All the tragic characters of Shakespeare are shown in their development; a hero at the end of the tragedy isn't the man he was at the beginning, his soul having undergone great changes. This is the first innovation introduced by Shakespeare. He did not master this manner of constructing tragedies at the beginning of his career. If we take "Romeo and Juliet", we can easily imagine a happy ending: if Friar Laurence had arrived at the Capulets' tomb five minutes earlier, there would have been to tragedy. But the logic of the characters in the great tragedies leads them to the inevitable end: even if Emilia had had the opportunity to prevent Othello from strangling Desdemona, still he would have killed himself, having understood the depth of his moral degradation; even if Edgar had had the chance to save Cordelia, Lear, having experienced all the evils of society, would never have returned to the throne to be the king he was at the beginning of the tragedy. The characters of Romeo and Juliet do not change to such a degree!

Shakespeare's second innovation is his way of explaining the evolution (or degradation) of his heroes by the social factors that form their psychology and influence their lives. The problems raised in Shakespeare's great tragedies still produce a terrific impression on our emotions and on our intellect.

In some of the tragedies Shakespeare treats important ethical themes. "Othello", for instance, shows us the conflict between the two moralities that have replaced medieval ideology (still strong, and represented in the play by Senator Brabantio). A new morality, the morality of the Renaissance, is reflected in Othello and Desdemona who refuse to obey outworn rules and are united by true love, unrestrained by social or racial prejudices. The other morality of the time, in reality utter immorality, is to be seen in the hateful figure of Iago. "Put money in the purse" is his motto. And falling under his influence, the noble Othello loses all the features that endeared him to us at the beginning of the play. This tragedy expresses the crisis of humanism: the Renaissance titans are no longer needed, and it is the Iagos who come to the top.

Many of Shakespeare's great tragedies are devoted to his favourite themes: the themes of state and society, the nature of power in general and the institution of monarchy in particular. If in the histories he shows us a gallery of none-too-attractive kings, while admitting that a good monarch is possible, if only theoretically, in his great tragedies he comes to the conclusion that monarchy is evil in its very essence, and can be nothing else. The different aspects of this idea are shown in "Hamlet", "Macbeth", and "King Lear", which form an anti-monarchic trilogy. There are some parallel motifs even in the plots of these plays. Have you noticed, for instance, that the theme of "Macbeth" is like that of "King Lear", but reversed, as in a mirror? If we formulate them in a rather simplified manner, they may be stated as follows:

Macbeth was human; he wanted to become a king; he became a king, and became a monster.

Lear was a king, and a monster; when he ceased being a king, he became human.

And where does "Hamlet" come in? Well, have you noticed that the plots of "Hamlet" and "Macbeth" are essentially the same? A usurper (Claudius, Macbeth) murders his near relative, the lawful king (Hamlet Senior, Duncan), and seizes the throne, the son of the murdered king and lawful heir to the throne (Hamlet, Malcolm), begins his struggle against the usurper. But if in "Macbeth" the stress is on the psychology of the usurper, in "Hamlet" the main character is the man who opposes him.

"HAMLET"

"Hamlet" is one of Shakespeare's greatest creation, and it is also considered the hardest of his works to understand. Some critics proclaim it obscure and in the final count even mysterious. It is the most written-about of Shakespeare's plays and many different interpretations of it exist, some of them very discerning and clever, some amounting to downright nonsense. In our opinion, "Hamlet" can be properly understood only in comparison with "Macbeth" and "King Lear".

The source of the plot can be found in a Danish chronicle written around 1200. There is nothing "mysterious" in it whatever. The "mysterious" element in Shakespeare's play is found in the exceptionally complex character of Hamlet himself. Why does he delay avenging his father's murder? Why can't he make up his mind?

Various explanations have been offered. Some writers, like Goethe considered Hamlet psychologically too delicate to carry out the mission laid on him. Others considered his will-power to be undermined either by his marked tendency to contemplation as opposed to action, his conviction of the futility of life as such, or by his consciousness of his inability to destroy all the evil in the world even if he succeeded in destroying Claudius, and so forth. Even a special term, "hamletism", was invented: it means a tendency to treat everything as futile, to doubt everything, to let thought prevail over action. Still other critics declared Hamlet to be a strong man with great will-power, and the delaying of his vengeance to be caused by obstacles of an objective character.

But Hamlet does constantly delay acting, and Shakespeare emphasizes the fact.

Let us remember that killing Claudius and taking the throne lawfully belonging to him, would have been easy for Hamlet. He is the lawful heir, loved by the people (this is mentioned in the text several times); everyone understands that Claudius is a usurper; there is such a strong atmosphere of discontent in the country that any king other than Claudius would be welcome. It was quite easy for Laertes to gather enough followers and storm the palace; they even wanted to make Laertes king: so how much easier would it have been for Hamlet!

No viler place than Elsinore was ever shown by Shakespeare. The walls of the palace seem saturated with treachery. Poisoning, spying, eavesdropping are the rule there. And in that environment Hamlet is placed. He is a humanist, a scholar. Many passages in his speeches are in fact quotations from Erasmus, an author very popular in England in Shakespeare's time, so that the audience would have recognized them as quotations (including the famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy). Hamlet is the most intellectual of all Shakespearian characters: he is capable of reflecting on life and drawing general conclusions.

We first see him plunged into the depths of despair: he is grieved by the death of his father, shocked and horrified by the inconstancy and immorality of his mother, filled with disgust and hatred for Claudius, and begins to be disgusted with life in general:

How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable

Seem to me all the uses * of this world!

(I, 2)

Later, after talking to the Ghost, he learns of a most foul crime, the murder of his father. The blow is the greatest he has ever felt, and he exclaims:

The time is out of joint: * - O cursed spite,

That ever I was born to set it right! -

(I, 5)

This couplet may be interpreted in different ways. The traditional explanation is that Hamlet is overwhelmed and depressed by the mission he is entrusted with, the mission of avenging his father's death, and doubts his ability to carry it out. But remembering some peculiarities of Elizabethan syntax, we may interpret it as follows: "Spite (evil), thou art cursed (doomed), because I was born to set right the wrongs of my time!"

· what habitually occurs.

· Everything in our time is out of order; unsatisfactory.

· A grave mistake was made by G.M. Kozintsev in his film version of "Hamlet", when Hamlet comes to Ophelia immediately after his conversation with the Ghost. In that case "the mouse-trap" is set less than forty-eight hours after Hamlet's learning of his father's being murdered. Then where is the delay for which Hamlet blames himself?

The next scene begins with the dialogue of Polonius and Reynaldo. From it we understand that a considerable amount of time has passed since the previous scene. Enter Ophelia; she tells her father of Hamlet's madness, which we know to be pretended. We understand that during that gap in time Hamlet has come to some conclusion that prevents him from avenging his father. More than that, we feel that the conclusion remains unsaid during the whole course of the play.

Probably Shakespeare never drew a more hateful character than Claudius. Traitor, hypocrite, flatterer, coward, this "smiling, damned villain", makes us hate him and sympathize with Hamlet.

Hamlet sincerely wants to kill Claudius, and we want him to do it, too. This is a natural course of action for a tragic hero. (We expect Romeo to kill Tybalt in revenge for Mercutio's death; what should he do otherwise, fetch the police?) But Hamlet delays and goes on delaying. Let us make a supposition. If Hamlet avenged his father by slaying Claudius, what would happen then? He would inherit the throne…

But remember! Treachery reigns in Elsinore. Hamlet is betrayed again and again: by his former close friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, by the foolish Ophelia, by his mother, by Laertes, whom he holds in high esteem, by Osric… He understands that his struggle against the evils of Elsinore can only take the form of a struggle for the throne, and he hates the idea, for it would only mean his sinking to the level of Claudius, Polonius, and others of their kind; of his eventually becoming another Claudius.

It is in the grave-yard scene that we get an inkling of the play's hidden message. It is not, as is often supposed, a discourse upon the vanity and futility of human life as such, but a biting social satire. Who does Hamlet speak of in the grave-yard scene? A politician, a courtier, a lawyer, a buyer of land; then a lady, and finally, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, who were among the greatest rulers that ever existed. Only of Yorick does Hamlet speak with genuine grief, but this is artistically necessary, because otherwise Hamlet would have seemed downright cynical; and yet we must remember that "poor Yorick" was a court fool! An then, it probably pleased Shakespeare to couple a monarch with a fool! Can one imagine Hamlet speaking about the vanity and uselessness of the life of a peasant or an artisan? It is amazing how firmly Shakespeare draws the social borderline: all the negative characters of the play are aristocrats, all for whom Hamlet expresses sympathy and who are in sympathy with him, come from the lower classes: the needy scholar Horatio, the actors, the soldiers, the grave-diggers…

As we may surmise, Hamlet, loved by the people, possessed all the qualities of an ideal monarch:

The courtier's, soldier's, scholar's eye, tongue, sword;

Th'expectancy and rose of the fair state,

The glass of fashion and the mould of form,

Th'observ'd of all observers…

(III, 1)

There was only one quality of a king he did not possess: the ability to be cunning and diplomatic, the ability to hatch intrigues. Even when for strategic reasons he pretended to be mad, his pretence consisted of speaking the truth straight out, as a result of which Claudius's suspicion of him was only heightened!

We repeat that it would have been easy for Hamlet to destroy Claudius and gain the throne for himself. And in such a situation his inaction called for greater wisdom and will-power than the most violent action. (For that reason the customary theatrical presentation of Hamlet as a weakling who is easily moved to tears is fundamentally wrong.) Some critics declare that Hamlet failed to achieve vengeance because he slew Claudius only when he was poisoned himself, and had but a few moments to live. But we explain the ease with which Hamlet kills Claudius in the last scene precisely by the fact that Hamlet knows there is now no danger of his becoming a king, a tyrant, a villain!

When the great Soviet producer Evgeni Vakhtangov staged the play "King Erik XIV" by the Swedish dramatist August Strinberg, he formulated its theme as follows: "royal power, bearing a contradiction to itself in its very essence, sooner or later must perish". Don't these words define the theme common to "Hamlet", "Macbeth", and "Lear?"

Of course, under the conditions of his time, Shakespeare could not put this idea into plain words: for such criminal thoughts he would either have been assassinated like Marlowe, or simply led to the gallows. (An insult to royalty was at that time punished by cutting off the offender's ears and nose.) But the true idea of the tragedy may be learned after careful reading.

This idea Shakespeare demonstrated with even greater force in "King Lear".

"KING LEAR"

In "King Lear" Shakespeare shows the very foundations of monarchy to be inhuman, demoralizing, and monstrous. In the first scenes of the play Lear is an old king, drunk with the sense of his almighty power. This sense prompts him to put his power to a final proof by renouncing his royal authority and dividing his kingdom between his three daughters. The reason for this action lies in Lear's conviction of his personal greatness, which, as he thinks, does not depend upon his kingship but will be with him in any circumstances. He is sure that the kingdom will remain a kingdom without a king, and that he will remain a king without his kingdom. He calls this intention "our darker (that is, hidden, top-secret) purpose", although at the very beginning of the play we learn that this plan is known among the courtiers, for Gloucester says that "equalities are so weighed that curiosity in neither can make choice of either's moiety", which means that the kingdom is divided into absolutely equal shares, and no princess will have cause to consider herself dealt with unfairly. Nevertheless, in his first speech Lear commands the princesses:

.... - Tell me, my daughters, -

.....................................

Which of you shall we say doth love us most?

That we our largest bounty may extend

Where nature doth with merit challenge.*

* That is, "that we should give the largest share to that one of you whose natural love for us is the greatest".

Now, that is pure demagogy: the plans for the kingdom's division have been drawn up beforehand, and it is impossible to suppose that even if one daughter were to outshine her sisters in her declarations of love, the dealing out of the shares would be changed. No, the old tyrant simply wants to feast on words of praise. And the contest of flattery begins. The elder daughters, Goneril and Regan, make flowery and insincere speeches in which they declare their affection for the willful and stupid old man; he is inordinately pleased with the proceedings, and addresses his youngest daughter Cordelia:

................ what can you say to draw

A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.

(I, 1)

Even if Cordelia had pleased Lear the most, she could not have drawn "a third more opulent", because there remained only that part of the kingdom originally intended for her. Cordelia revolts against Lear's pretensions and love of flattery; she is also disgusted by her sisters' hypocrisy. Lear flies into a rage, and drives her away. Another person revolts against Lear, the Earl of Kent, but for a different reason. Kent is endowed with the slavish psychology of a feudal vassal, and protests against Lear's behaviour, which he considers unworthy of a true king. Kent, to quote a French saying, is "more royalist than the king himself". It is this psychology of a vassal that makes Kent disguise himself and serve Lear again, despite the fact that the king has unjustly punished him and deprived him of all his rights. Lear's personality and behaviour give no cause whatever for such affection; it is not Lear himself that Kent loves, but the principle of monarchy personified in him. At the end of the play, Edgar, a truly heroic and noble character, tells the Duke of Albany how Kent followed Lear, in disguise, "and did him service improper for a slave" (V, 3). Hardly a compliment, is it?

Very soon Lear begins to understand that, having renounced his crown, he can no longer lay claim to any honour and respect whatever, even from his daughters. He is helped to understand this by his Fool, "a bitter Fool", who calls the old man "Lear's shadow" and by his stinging jokes makes the ex-monarch see the true state of things.

The conflict between Lear and his elder daughters is brought to a crisis by their refusing to let him have a hundred knights in his service. After hearing Regan declare that there is no need for him to have even one knight in his service, Lear says:

O reason not the need! Our basest beggars

Are in the poorest things superfluous: *

Allow not nature more than nature needs, *

Man's life is cheap as beast's........... (II, 4)

· Have some trifle not absolutely necessary.

· … needs to sustain life.

After that, shaken by wrath and grief, Lear roams the heath during a storm, and reaches a new stage in his understanding of the world:

Poor naked wretches, wheresoe'er you are,

That bide* the pelting of this pitiless storm,

How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,

Your loop'd and window'd* raggedness, defend you

From seasons such as these? O, I have ta'en*

Too little care of this! Take physic, pomp;*

Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,

That thou mayst shake the superflux to them.

And show the heavens more just.

(III, 4)

· bide (old use) - endure.

· Looped and windowed - full of holes.

· ta'en - taken.

· Take medicine to cure yourselves, you great men.

In this great speech we see the trend of Shakespeare's thought: "superflux" means things not absolutely necessary for man to keep body and soul together; in other words, Shakespeare proposes equal distribution of wealth without which the heavens are unjust; that is, Shakespeare shares Thomas More's Utopian communism.

Lear goes temporarily mad, but in his madness utters some of the wisest words ever said:

Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear;

Robes and furr'd gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,

And the strong lance of justice hurtless* breaks;

Arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw doth pierce it.

None does offend, none, - I say, none…

(IV, 6)

· without hurting the sinner

Of course, by saying that "none does offend", that is "no one is to blame", Lear does not preach all-forgiveness, but states that the real cause of crime and evil in the world cannot be laid to the door of any single individual but to the reigning social inequality. The tyrant Lear has vanished, and we see a great sufferer who understands the order of things and condemns it.

You must have noticed that there are paradoxes in the tragedy's construction: Lear attains true dignity only when he loses his crown and becomes a beggar, he becomes truly wise only when he goes mad; Gloucester sees the truth about his sons after he has been blinded… But probably the greatest paradox of the play lies in the final catastrophe being caused by those who love Lear most: by Kent and Cordelia.

When Lear' conflict with his elder daughters begins, Kent gets in touch with Cordelia, who has become the queen of France. After the heath scenes we see Cordelia land in England with a troop of soldiers to save her father. Awakening in Cordelia's tent, Lear asks:

Am I in France?

Kent. In your own kingdom, sir.

Lear. Do not abuse me.

(IV, 7)

Lear's words may be explained as "do not deceive me", but they may also be interpreted as follows: "Do not insult me by supposing that I still want to be a king." By then he has already learned the laws of life and grasped the scope of social evil. It would have been commendable if Cordelia had taken Lear to France, where he could have spent his remaining years in peace. Nevertheless, Cordelia insists on waging war upon her sisters in order to restore the crown to Lear, as a result of which she perishes herself and causes Lear to die of grief. And we may surmise that in the last scene of the tragedy Lear calls Cordelia "my poor fool" precisely because she started the war for the crown.

The sub-plot of the tragedy tells of the relations between the Earl of Gloucester and his two sons. There is a parallel and also a contrast between Lear and Gloucester. Like Lear, Gloucester rejects the worthy child and favours the unworthy, for which he suffers greatly; but, unlike Lear, he does not grasp the essence of life, and sums up his experience in these pessimistic lines:

As flies to wanton* boys, are we to th' gods, -

They kill us for their sport.

(IV, 1)

· wanton - playful.

Gloucester's illegitimate son Edmund is one of the most unprincipled villains created by Shakespeare. His career is also built upon a paradox: the higher he climbs the social ladder, the lower he sinks morally. In the end he is slain in single combat by his half-brother Edgar, who, having been slandered and beggared, becomes the defender of justice and finally triumphs.

The end of the tragedy is quite unlike any other in Shakespeare's works. All the other plays built around affairs of state end with the coronation of a new king: Richmond, Malcolm, or Fortinbras. And only in "King Lear" is there no coronation, and the throne is left unoccupied, for the Duke of Albany shares the right to rule the land with Edgar. We may say that the tragedy's ending is Utopian, and Shakespeare shows that his concept of a state founded on justice does not include a king.

The Power of Money as Seen in Shakespeare's Works

Shakespeare had ample opportunities to observe the growth capitalism as the chief tendency of his epoch. The theme of the power of money is treated in many of his plays: in the dialogue between Romeo and the Apothecary in "Romeo and Juliet"; in "King John", "Henry IV", "The Merry Wives of Windsor", "Measure for Measure"; it is one of the main motifs in "The Merchant of Venice"; it is summed up in "Timon of Athens", the last tragedy Shakespeare ever wrote. Although the story of Timon is taken from ancient authors and the scene of the play is laid in ancient Athens, we see the society of Shakespeare's time. Timon, a rich and noble Athenian, is generous to his friends, but when he meets financial difficulties, they refuse to help him, and he is completely ruined. He becomes a misanthrope (a hater of mankind), and retires to a forest cave. The speeches of Timon in which he curses humanity are among the most powerful lines written by Shakespeare. His skill in the composition of this tragedy is seen by the fact that we neither resent Timon's bitter and pessimistic views nor share them, but experience a deep sympathy for him and an even deeper hatred of the vicious social order that brought this kind and generous man to such a state.

While living in the cave, Timon finds a treasure, a hoard of gold and speaks of it in the following words:

Thus much of this will make black, white; foul, fair;

Wrong, right; base, noble; old, young; coward, valiant.

............................................

This yellow slave

Will knit and break religions; bless the accurs'd;

Make the hoar leprosy* ador'd; place thieves,

And give them title, knee, and approbation,*

With senators on the bench.................

.......................................

But yet I'll bury thee: thou'lt go, strong thief,

When gouty keepers of you cannot stand: -

Nay,* stay thou out for earnest.

(IV, 3)

· When a person is struck by leprosy, an infectious skin disease, the skin becomes white, thence hoar (white) leprosy.

· knee and approbation - respect and approval.

· Nay (old use) - No.

"Timon of Athens" is one of the earliest works of literature condemning the power of money, and, probably, the greatest. No wonder Karl Marx held a very high opinion of the tragedy, and quoted it in "Capital".

"Timon of Athens" ended the third period of Shakespeare's literary work. The end of the period was also marked by the publication of his sonnets.

THE SONNETS

Shakespeare's sonnets can't be placed among his best works; only a few of them may be placed among the best English sonnets in general; but they occupy a unique place in the Shakespearian heritage, because they are his only lyrical pieces, the only things he has, it seems, written about himself.

Critics differ in establishing the degree in which the poet's life was reflected in the sonnets: some hold the opinion that literally every line is absolutely autobiographical, while others think them mere variations on themes traditional in Renaissance poetry. The truth, probably, lies some place halfway.

We do not know for certain who were the prototypes of the sonnets' characters, and, unless some yet undiscovered authentic documents come to light, we shall never know. It would be wiser to treat the sonnet sequence just as a story written in verse without trying to probe too deeply into the real-life facts behind it.

The three main characters are the Poet, his Friend, and the Dark Lady. The Poet expresses the warmest admiration for the Friend, almost prostrating himself before him. Some of his words may seem exaggerated to us, but at that time it was customary to express one's friendship in a most ardent manner unusual in our days.

The Dark Lady is the beloved of the Poet; unlike the idealized ladies in the sonnets of Petrarch and his followers, she is false and vicious, but the Poet, though aware of the fact, can't help loving her. (The adjective "dark" does not mean merely "dark-haired", but is a synonym for "wicked", "sinister".)

And then comes the tragedy: the Friend and the Dark Lady betray the Poet.

By reading between the lines of the sonnets, we may see a tragedy in Shakespeare's life, a tragedy which he might not have fully understood himself. Despite the author's intention, we see that the Poet's Friend, who is praised with such great feeling, is a shallow, cruel and petulant man; the Dark Lady, likewise, is shown to be wicked and lying. And so in the sonnets we may see the great misfortune of a genius who wasted his life and his soul for the sake of persons unworthy of him.

This event must have produced a powerful impression on Shakespeare, for in many of his plays there are two characters, a younger and an elder one; the elder entertains a great affection for the younger, and the younger betrays the elder. Sometimes we sympathize with the elder character, sometimes with the younger, but the situation is the same; remember Falstaff and Prince Henry, Julius Caesar and Brutus, Othello and Iago, Menenius Agrippa and Coriolanus.

There are a major theme running through the cycle: the theme of the implacability of Time. How can one triumph over it? Shakespeare gives two answers. The first is: one lives for ever in one's children, in one's posterity. The second is: one may achieve immortality if one's features are preserved by art, an particularly in poetry. Here Shakespeare composes some masterful variations on the theme of the immortality of poetry, a theme that was introduced by the great Roman poet Horace.

LV.

Not marble, nor the gilded monuments

Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rime;

But you shall shine more bright in these contents

Than unswept stone, besmear'd with sluttish time.

When wasteful war shall statues overturn,

And broils root out the work of masonry,

Nor Mars his sword * nor war's quick fire shall burn

The living record of your memory.

'Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity

Shall you place forth; your praise shall still find room,

Even in the eyes of all posterity

That wear this world out to the ending doom.

So, till the judgment that yourself arise,

You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes.

· Mars' sword

CXLVII.

My love is as a fever, longing still

For that which longer nurseth the disease;

Feeding on that which doth preserve the ill,

The uncertain sickly appetite to the please.

My reason, the physician to my love,

Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,

Hath left me, and I desperate now approve

Desire is death, which physic did except.

Past cure I am, now reason is past care,

And frantic mad with evermore unrest;

My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are,

At random from the truth vainly express'd;

For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,

Who art as black as hell, as dark as night.

The sonnets show how Shakespeare's incomparable poetic style was forged and perfected; to some extent they raise the veil over his private life, of which we know so little. Quite a number of them may be read as lyrical pieces, independent of the whole.

The Fourth Period

As we remarked before, the last years of Shakespeare's career as a playwright are characterized by a considerable change in the style of the drama. Beaumont and Fletcher became the most popular dramatists, and the plays of Shakespeare written during his fourth period are modelled after their dramatic technique. All of them are written around a dramatic conflict, but the tension in them is not so great as in the tragedies; all of them have happy endings. The plays are genuinely poetic, although sometimes unevenly written; in them we may perceive an expression of the lofty humanist ideals typical of Shakespeare, but on the whole we get an impression that he is telling us fairy-tales in which he doesn't believe himself. However, the play that was probably the last one written by him, the play in which he bids farewell to the theatre is one of the most profound and significant he ever wrote. It is "The Tempest".

"THE TEMPEST"

In this allegorical play Shakespeare's thoughts of life and society are concentrated; it reflects the crisis of humanism which he witnessed in his declining years.

Prospero, Duke of Milan, was so absorbed by his studies of nature, that he gave his brother an opportunity to usurp his throne. Prospero and his daughter escaped to a desert island formerly occupied by the witch Sycorax; the latter's son, the savage Caliban, became Prospero's slave and did all the hard work. By his magic Prospero also enslaved the spirit Ariel, who symbolizes the forces of nature. Caliban craves freedom and hates Prospero:

You taught me language; and my profit on't

Is, I know how to curse. The red plague rid you*

For learning me your language!

(I, 2)

· - Let the plague rid us of you!

As the action of the play unfolds, Caliban rebels against Prospero, but is defeated. Prospero becomes reconciled to his treacherous brother, and gets his daughter Miranda happily married; his throne is restored to him, but at a great price: he renounces his magical power over nature. Further intentions he expresses in the words:

I'll................................

...................................

........... retire me to my Milan, where

Every third thought shall be my grave.

(V, 1)

As we see, the ending of the play, though outwardly happy, is really very bitter. Shakespeare shows the incompatibility of humanism with worldly power, and the deep abyss that has to be crossed by the humanists to reach the people.

The positive ideal of the author is hinted at in the speech of the noble Gonzalo; in it we again perceive Utopian motifs:

Had I plantation of this isle, my lord, -

.................................

And were the king on't, what would I do?

.................................

I' * the commonwealth, I would by contraries

Execute all things: for no kind of traffic

Would I admit; no name of magistrate;

Letters* should not be known; riches, poverty,

And use of service, none; contract, succession,*

Bourn, bound* of land, tilth, vineyard, none;

No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oil;

No occupation; all men idle, all;

And women too; but innocent and pure;

No sovereignty: -

....................................

All things in common nature should produce

Without sweat or endeavour: treason, felony,*

Sword, pike, knife, gun, or need of any engine,*

Would I not have; but nature should bring forth,

Of its own kind, all foison,* all abundance

To feed my innocent people

........................................

I would with such perfection govern, sir,

T'excel the golden age.

(II, 1)

· I' - In.

· letters (pl) - a certified document granting rights to its bearer.

· succession - the right of succeeding to a title, the throne, a dignity or property.

· bourn (old word), bound - boundary, limit.

· felony - very serious crime (murder, armed robbery, etc.)

· engine - (here), machine.

· foison (old word) - plentiful harvest; good crop.

Shakespeare understood this to be but a beautiful dream, for in his time there was no actual social force to carry anything like it into reality.

And now it is time to say a few words about another important aspect of Shakespeare's philosophy.

Shakespeare's Attitude to the People

Some critics hold the opinion that Shakespeare despised the common people; he showed the wild violence of Jack Cade's rebellion in "Henry VI", Part II, showed the ease with which the people may be deceived in "Julius Caesar", did not hesitate to depict the rough and uncouth Caliban… But there is another side to the problem.

Shakespeare did not idealize the people, he knew that common men in his time were uneducated and politically immature, but, more vividly than any of his contemporaries and many writers to come after him, he showed the people to be the main driving force of history, without the support of whom no movement can succeed. A very significant scene was included by him in "Henry VI", Part I, one of his earliest plays. The Countess of Auvergne lays a trap to capture the famous English general Lord Talbot, and is surprised by his small stature and weak physique:

Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf!

It cannot be this weak and wrinkled shrimp*

Should strike such terror to his enemies.

("Henry VI", Part I, II, 3)

· shrimp - a very small or unimportant person or creature.

Talbot replies:

No, no, I am but shadow of myself;

You are deceived, my substance is not here…

He blows his horn, after which his soldiers rush in and deliver him, and Talbot says of himself: "these are his substance, sinews, arms, and strength".

A similar view is held in his later plays. Richard II and Richard III perish because they are not supported by the people; the same is the case with the noble Brutus in "Julius Caesar", whereas such political adventurers as Henry IV and Mark Antony succeed because they take pains to draw the people to their side. The great Roman general Coriolanus despises and hates the common people, which eventually leads him to betray his country and die a shameful death. On the contrary, the only ideal ruler in all Shakespeare's works, Henry V, identifies himself with his people, and achieves brilliant results.

SHAKESPEARE'S IMMORTALITY

In many of his views Shakespeare was far ahead of his time. He rejected feudalism, but was sober and shrewd enough to see the evils and vices of growing capitalism. He did not point out any definite means towards the achievement of his ideals, which were rather vague, he could give no concrete answers to the problems he put forth, but he was a truly great inquirer, and his unparallelled penetration into life gives us, his true heirs, an opportunity to answer his questions better than he could himself. His works are truly immortal, and will retain their immortality as long as the human race exists. It is only natural that the greatest minds of the world admired Shakespeare and acknowledged his unsurpassed merit; among them were Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Goethe, Pushkin, Victor Hugo, and many others.

A writer is a true classic, if every new generation finds new and hitherto unperceived aspects of his works; such is the case with Shakespeare. His popularity all over the world grows from year to year. Performances of major Shakespearian parts are a kind of actors, examination for the right to be called great. Productions of Shakespeare, translation of Shakespeare, critical works on Shakespeare are an indicator of the cultural level of any given nation. The Soviet Union has good cause to be proud of having given many valuable contributions to world Shakespeariana.