Shakespeare’s Irrational Endings: The Problem Plays

191 Pages·2012·1.011 MB·English

by  David Margolies (auth.)

Shakespeare’s Irrational Endings
AlsobyDavidMargolies
CHRISTOPHERCAUDWELL:MarxismandCulture(editedwithLindenPeach)
CULTUREANDCRISISINBRITAININTHETHIRTIES(editedwith
JonClark,MargotHeinemannandCaroleSnee)
THEFUNCTIONOFLITERATURE:AStudyofChristopherCaudwell’s
Aesthetics
GREENEINCONCEITbyJohnDickenson(editedwithDonaldBeecher)
HEARTOFTHEHEARTLESSWORLD:EssaysinCulturalResistancein
MemoryofMargotHeinemann(editedwithMaroulaJoannou)
MONSTERSOFTHEDEEP:SocialDissolutioninShakespeare’sTragedies
NOVELANDSOCIETYINELIZABETHANENGLAND
SCENESANDACTIONS:UnpublishedManuscriptsofChristopherCaudwell
(editedwithJeanDuparc)
WRITINGTHEREVOLUTION:CulturalCriticismfromLeftReview
Shakespeare’s
Irrational Endings
The Problem Plays
David Margolies
EmeritusProfessorofEnglish,Goldsmiths,UniversityofLondon,UK
Palgrave
macmillan
©DavidMargolies2012
Softcoverreprintofthehardcover1stedition2012978-0-230-27761-8
Allrightsreserved.Noreproduction,copyortransmissionofthis
publicationmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermission.
Noportionofthispublicationmaybereproduced,copiedortransmitted
savewithwrittenpermissionorinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthe
Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,orunderthetermsofanylicence
permittinglimitedcopyingissuedbytheCopyrightLicensingAgency,
SaffronHouse,6–10KirbyStreet,LondonEC1N8TS.
Anypersonwhodoesanyunauthorizedactinrelationtothispublication
maybeliabletocriminalprosecutionandcivilclaimsfordamages.
Theauthorhasassertedhisrighttobeidentifiedastheauthorofthis
workinaccordancewiththeCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
Firstpublished2012by
PALGRAVEMACMILLAN
PalgraveMacmillanintheUKisanimprintofMacmillanPublishersLimited,
registeredinEngland,companynumber785998,ofHoundmills,Basingstoke,
HampshireRG216XS.
PalgraveMacmillanintheUSisadivisionofStMartin’sPressLLC,
175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010.
PalgraveMacmillanistheglobalacademicimprintoftheabovecompanies
andhascompaniesandrepresentativesthroughouttheworld.
Palgrave®andMacmillan®areregisteredtrademarksintheUnitedStates,
theUnitedKingdom,Europeandothercountries.
ISBN978-1-349-32555-9 ISBN978-1-137-03104-4(eBook)
DOI10.1057/9781137031044
Thisbookisprintedonpapersuitableforrecyclingandmadefromfully
managedandsustainedforestsources.Logging,pulpingandmanufacturing
processesareexpectedtoconformtotheenvironmentalregulationsofthe
countryoforigin.
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12
Contents
PrefaceandAcknowledgements vi
NoteonTexts vii
1 Introduction 1
2 All’sWellThatEndsWell 13
3 MuchAdoAboutNothing 36
4 MeasureforMeasure 56
5 TheMerchantofVenice 86
6 TroilusandCressida 112
7 Othello 138
8 Conclusion 162
Notes 174
Bibliography 177
Index 181
v
Preface and Acknowledgements
The Problem Plays, in my years of teaching Shakespeare to English
and drama students, were always awkward. With the histories, the
comedies and the tragedies, students knew where they were and
theyknew (or thoughttheyknew) whythe charactersacted as they
did. But the Problem Plays had actions, the endings in particular,
whereanswerstoquestionsaboutmotiveseemedunsatisfactory.This
madetheplaysdisturbing–nothugelydisturbingonnightmarepro-
portions but producing an uncertainty that lingered. Why did they
end like that? In the other plays the playworlds appeared to con-
taintheanswers:wecouldlookatthemotivesofthecharactersand
we could judge the consequences of their behaviour. But the Prob-
lem Plays seemed to lack any stable connection between cause and
effect;theyhadtoomanyarbitraryelements.Arbitrarinessisaresult
of the author’s intentions, not those of the characters; Shakespeare
must have intended the disturbance. Naturalistic understanding of
theplayworldcouldnotexplain thesituation.Ifoundmyself cross-
ing into territory everybody has been warned against: we cannot
know Shakespeare’s intentions – don’t go there. Treating the plays
asstructuresdesignedtoproduceemotionalresponseinanaudience
I found to be a fruitful approach – the plays started to make sense.
TheProblemPlaysarestillawkwardbutInowadmiretheirenormous
skilland,notboundtonaturalism,IenjoythemmorethanIhadever
imagined.Ihopethisbookcanalsomakereaders’experienceofthe
playsmorepleasurable.
Iamgratefulforthetoleranceofallmyfamilyinputtingupwith
my distraction from concerns of daily life over the last couple of
years.IalsowishtothankCushlaBrennanforherhelpfulcomments
on the Measure for Measure chapter and Leonard Goldstein for his
criticismofthechapteronTheMerchantofVenice.MostofallIthank
SandraMargoliesforhercontinuingexpertcriticismandwiseadvice,
andforherpatienceinhavingtolivewithsomeoneelse’sdeadlines.
Thisbookisdedicatedtoher.
DavidMargolies
vi
Note on Texts
The editions of Shakespeare plays used in the different chapters are
asfollows:
All’s Well That Ends Well (1994) ed. Susan Snyder (Oxford: Oxford
WorldClassics)
Much Ado About Nothing (1981) ed. A. R. Humphreys (London:
Arden)
Measure for Measure (1994) ed. N. W. Bawcutt (Oxford: Oxford
WorldClassics)
The Merchant of Venice (1998) ed. Jay L. Halio (Oxford: Oxford
WorldClassics)
Troilus and Cressida (1984) Kenneth Muir (Oxford: Oxford
Shakespeare)
Othello(1968)ed.KennethMuir(Harmondsworth:Penguin)
Hamlet (1982)ed.HaroldJenkins(London:Arden)
KingLear(1972)ed.KennethMuir(London:Arden)
References to other Shakespeare plays are taken from Stanley Wells
andGaryTaylor(2005)TheOxfordShakespeare,2ndedition(Oxford:
Clarendon)
vii
1
Introduction
AfewofShakespeare’splays–notquitetragedies,notquitecomedies,
neither histories nor romances – were quarantined in the late nine-
teenthcenturyinthecategoryofProblemPlays.1TroilusandCressida,
All’s Well That Ends Well and Measure for Measure, the conventional
group,wereidentifiedasProblemComedies,butTroilusandCressida
certainly was not a comedy and the comic quality of the other two
was constrained by their bitterness. They were not felt to have suf-
ficient similarity to constitute their own positive category and were
rather an ‘any other’group.Changes in criticalapproaches thatfol-
lowedmajorchangesinsocialattitudesinthelastcenturyrevivified
interest in the plays. New relevance and new meanings have been
found in the texts. The conventional group of three has also been
recognized as sharing significant characteristics with a number of
other plays, The Merchant of Venice and Much Ado About Nothing in
particular,andtothem,asIwillargue,Othelloshouldalsobeadded.2
Theenvironmental,economicandsocialproblemsthathavereached
crisis point in this century, and the political structures that seem
inadequate to deal with them, the widespread corruption in high
places and the deluge of political spin, have had their effect on the
arts and given the Problem Plays a new attractiveness. Shakespeare
does not preach, he does not confront; he is neither an Edward
Bond nor a late Pinter, but he does pose contradictions. These con-
tradictions have always been there in the plays, but now people’s
experience of the gap between official rhetoric and social reality
makesthemimportant.Theattractionofthesesixplaysdoesnotlie
in any answers Shakespeare provides; it is the excitement of seeing
1
2 Shakespeare’sIrrationalEndings
in the theatre a relevant and witty response to the disintegration of
societyaroundus.
Contradiction is fundamental to the nature of drama, and all
Shakespeare’s plays could be said to deal with it. ‘Drama, by def-
inition,isdialogical,itisthemeetingpointofoftenconflictingatti-
tudestoachosensubject’,AlexanderShurbanovandBoikaSokolova
point out. In the Problem Plays these contradictions are created in
such a way that they cannot be resolved. In the words again of
Shurbanov and Sokolova, ‘most dramas, like most artistic products
ingeneral,strivetotranscendthisdialogicalstatusandattainacon-
clusive synthesis of attitude and meaning. Shakespeare’s drama is
rather exceptional in that it does not seem to strive towards any
such final transcendence, a peculiarity defined by the tradition of
liberal humanism as the poet’s proverbial elusiveness’ (Shurbanov
and Sokolova, 2001, p. 17).3 The major Soviet Shakespeare critic
AlexanderAnikstsaid,‘Shakespeare’splaysarenearlyalwaysproblem
plays, and not just the ones which we normally call the “problem
plays”’ (Anikst, 1989, p. 179). All the plays necessarily have some
conflictortherewouldbenoplotbuttheplaysIincludeinthecate-
goryunderdiscussionhavecontradictionsthataremorethansimple
conflicts. They go beyond oppositions of subject matter; they are
contradictionsbetweentheformandthecontentandtheyarethere-
fore impossible to resolve. They are most obvious in the endings of
playswheretheformhasledtoaudienceexpectationswhichareful-
filled at a formal level but, in terms of the content, are frustrated.
Shakespeare’scomediescommonlyendinmarriages,bydefinitiona
happyform,butthemarriagesoftheProblemPlaysareforthemost
part not at all happy. Thus the happy form is filled with a dubious
content; form and content are in contradiction. The endings pro-
duceemotionalresponsesthatarepositiveandnegativeatthesame
time, not the one and then the other. Part of the effectiveness of
Shakespeare’sconstructionisthatthesecontradictionscannotberea-
soned away or balanced out as a mediocre relationship. They arise
from the same event but are attached to different aspects (the form
and the content) and thus exist effectively in different dimensions.
Thenearestparallelformeisopticalillusions–forexample,thedraw-
ingoftwostackswhereone’sperceptionofthevisualkeepschanging,
asintheFigureopposite.