Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare

This play involves the separation, then reunion, of Egeon and Emelia (husband and wife); their twin sons, Antipholus of Ephesus (A.E.) and Antipholus of Syracuse (A.S.); and their twin servants, Dromio of Ephesus (D.E.) and Dromio of Syracuse (D.S.). The family is separated at sea during a storm, 33 years before the present. Egeon, A.S., and D.S. survive together and grow up in Syracuse. Seven years before the present, they decide to search, separately, for their lost family. Emelia survives with A.E. and D.E., only to have a “rude” fisherman steal the boys from her. In sorrow, she becomes a nun in the town of Ephesus. By fate, A.E. and D.E. move to Ephesus too, though they don’t know of their mother Emelia. A.E. marries Adriana, and she has a sister living with them, Luciana.

Egeon comes to the city looking for his son (A.E.) and his servant (D.E.), only to be sentenced to death for entering enemy territory. Soon after, Egeon’s other son, A.S., and servant, D.S., enter the city on business. The sons and the servants (both identical twins), are easily confused by the citizens of Ephesus: Angelo the goldsmith, a female Courtesan, various merchants, and Nell, Adriana’s cook and fiancee to D.E. The citizens think Antipholus and Dromio have gone mad, since they get very angry and can move from place to place like magic. Doctor Pinch, a psychiatrist, even tries to get the devil out of A.E.’s body. At the hour of Egeon’s execution, Egeon recognizes his son A.E., though A.E. doesn’t recognize Egeon. Simultaneously, Emelia appears from the convent with A.S. and D.S., who have taken refuge there, and the family reunites. The Duke (Solinus) pardons Egeon for entering the city, A.S. begins to court Luciana for marriage, and Emelia holds a feast to rejoice the family’s reunion.

While it would not be accurate to say that Shakespeare attempts to embody all of the characteristics of the ideal Renaissance woman in all of his female characters, it is certainly accurate to say that he introduces us to female characters who go against the grain of the Elizabethan notion of what a woman should be. Shakespeare discards the notion of the subservient female and introduces us to women of intelligence, wit, power, and character. One writer of the Elizabethan era compared a woman with an education to a madman with a sword: “…you just couldn’t tell what she’d do with it!” Shakespeare not only provides some of his female characters with a sword, but shows that they can wield it quite effectively. This article will focus on four of Shakespeare’s women: Lady Macbeth, Cressida, Rosalind, and Cleopatra. In doing so, we will explore how Shakespeare “breaks the mold” of the common Elizabethan perception of the female.

Before we examine the characters, it is important to provide a brief summary of these commonly held perceptions. A woman in sixteenth century England had no vote, few legal rights, and an extremely limited chance of an education, much less a job. Freedom enjoyed by an Elizabethan woman was granted, and taken away, by her husband. He was the prince with power, and his wife was the loyal, loving subject. Both church and state supported this premise of wifely inferiority and it got a further endorsement from the law. When a woman married, she traditionally lost control over her property. Any legal loopholes that might have left some doubt as to women’s inferior status were amply filled in by the teachings of biology and the theory of the four humors, which stated that women’s bodies had a greater proportion of the cold and moist humors. This meant that women were passive, timid, and hesitating-fit to be dominated by men. When the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe died in 1601, his funeral eulogist praised him for “keeping his sons to their studies and his daughters to spinning and sewing”. As we will see in the four women we are about to examine, they hardly fit into this mold.

We shall begin with Lady Macbeth who can be described as a formidable version of a woman who dominates her weak-willed husband. However, it would be wrong to see her as a monster. On the contrary, she is perhaps more than usually feminine. She is conscious of her woman’s breasts, her mother’s milk; knows “How tender ’tis to love the babe that milks me”; and, when she thinks to carry out the murder herself, fails because Duncan reminds her of her father. Macbeth calls her his dearest “chuck”, and she speaks, when sleepwalking, of her “little hand”. In more modern terms, she might be described as an “iron butterfly”-delicate yet strong.

It is apparent from the moment we meet Lady Macbeth reading her husband’s letter that she is not going to conform to the role of a subservient female. When she cries out to the spirits to “unsex” her, and when she brags that if she had vowed to do a murder she would follow through, we see that she does not conform to the ideal of the nurturing woman. Even if it were her own baby she “…would, while it was smiling in my face, / Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums, / And dash’d the brains out, had I so sworn as you / Have done to this”.

The resourcefulness and self-control of Lady Macbeth throughout the play is extraordinary, and hardly resembles the character of a dainty woman. It is only in private that she shows her weariness, and only after her mental collapse that she relents control. This does not, however, negate the power and fortitude that she has shown to this point.

Cressida is a completely different personality from Lady Macbeth, but no less strays from the accepted Elizabethan ideal. In Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, the female character is less crafty, less self-possessed, less sensual, and less intelligent than Shakespeare’s Cressida. Here again, Shakespeare takes a hammer to the mold. Cressida’s soliloquy at the end of Act 1.2 reveals her as a sophisticated young lady who is expert at manipulating the emotions of men. We later find her wit to be far superior to that of Pandarus as they banter while watching the return of the Trojan soldiers.

Cressida’s skill at the love game is derived from the knowledge that with her surrender will come a loss of power. However, Cressida retains her power through her unfaithfulness to Troilus and her subsequent games with Diomedes. Muir implies that Cressida’s uninhibited behavior on her arrival in the Greek camp may perhaps be ascribed to a reaction from the strain of being put on a pedestal, but whatever the reason, we see a woman who is in control of herself and, more often than not, in control of those around her. If there were ever a character that wandered from the Elizabethan ideal of a subservient, uneducated, yielding woman, it is Cressida.

Perhaps the two women of these four who most dramatically usurp the power of a male-dominated society are Rosalind and Cleopatra. I believe that one of the reasons for this is that significant parallels can be drawn between these two characters and the most powerful “real” woman of her time-Queen Elizabeth. Before we explore these parallels, we should first take a brief look at the background of this powerful English monarch.

While most Elizabethan women were spinning and sewing, Queen Elizabeth was proving that a woman was more than capable of mustering a kingdom-and showing herself to be an almighty exception to the rules that governed women’s lives. Elizabeth realized early on that marriage meant a loss of power, so she never married. Once the scepter was in her hand, she was determined not to relinquish it. The Pope later expressed surprise at Elizabeth’s formidable authority: “She is only a woman… and yet she makes herself feared by Spain, by France… by all”.

The most obvious parallel between Elizabeth and Rosalind is in donning the mask of masculinity. Much of the lavish praise that gushed over the queen in her lifetime exalted her “masculine” virtues of courage and intellect. Much like Rosalind, Elizabeth almost had to become a man at times in order to get anything done. Rosalind certainly understands how the game is played-”…in my heart / Lie there what hidden woman’s fear there will / We’ll have a swashing and a martial outside”. Elizabeth knew as well as Rosalind that she had to maintain that swashing and martial outside. To call attention to womanliness in the wrong way would have been political suicide.

The obvious parallel between Elizabeth and Cleopatra is that they both had the disadvantages of being a woman ruler in a male-dominated court. Elizabeth gained control of the court by capitalizing on the fact that she was a woman-initially a young and attractive one. She, like Cleopatra, had to play a double role, alternating between the earthly woman and the divine majesty. If this is an accurate depiction of the young Elizabeth, then she shared Cleopatra’s practical understanding in winning the court over with her “feminine wiles” and flirtatiousness, but both women rose far above the ordinary definitions of the feminine.

In the scene where Cleopatra questions the messenger about Octavia’s physical appearance, Shakespeare may have been trying to show an example of her pettiness. According to Irene G. Dash, recent scholarship has revealed that this behavior runs parallel with that of Queen Elizabeth. If Shakespeare’s audience knew of these incidents, this scene would have served to strengthen the impression that he was describing a real queen-a woman of power. Dash also points out that the people of Shakespeare’s time wrestled with the problem of Elizabeth’s refusal to marry. Surely, Shakespeare must have incorporated this experience into his portrait of Cleopatra. Queen Elizabeth ruled far beyond her “salad days” and never completely relinquished control of power. Through analogy, Shakespeare would have been reinforcing the image of a known woman monarch.

Now that these parallels have been drawn, we will explore the characters of Rosalind and Cleopatra in more depth. As You Like It is Rosalind’s play as Hamlet is Hamlet’s. As Harold Bloom denotes, Rosalind is Hamlet’s equal in wit, intellect, and vision of herself . As the heroine in the comedy, Rosalind exemplifies the best of virtues to be found in a Renaissance English woman. She is intelligent, warm, witty, and strong of character. Touchstone and Jaques are poor wits compared to her, and her androgynous allure can appear so attractive, her virtuosity of wit so engaging, that all our attention becomes focused on her as if nothing else matters. Her ability to talk circles around Orlando seems sufficient proof of her complete triumph. The sense of Orlando being mastered creates a one-sided relationship in which the woman has control.

However, it would be a mistake to bestow the “scepter of Arden” on Rosalind just yet. Shakespeare does not completely ignore the sexual politics of his time. As Bloom points out, in order to love, Rosalind must reveal herself to Orlando, but in giving up the disguise, she also gives up the power it symbolizes. The liberation that Rosalind experiences in the forest has built into it the conservative countermovement by which, as the play returns to the normal world, she will be reduced to the traditional woman who is subservient to men. This presents a paradox of sorts because Rosalind is the architect of the play’s resolution, but the resolution phases out the power she has wielded. But does it really? Her submission is explicit but not ironic when she declares: “To you I give myself, for I am yours”. Bloom proposes that the casting of herself in the role of male possession is all the more charming because she does not have to be forced to adopt it; her self-taming is voluntary.

In the forest of Arden, both men and women are permitted an expansion of sexual identity that transcends restrictive gender rules. Just as Rosalind gains access to the traditional masculine attributes of strength and control, Orlando gains access to the traditional female attributes of compassion and nurturing. It is important to note, however, that Rosalind’s possession of the costume and the power that goes with it is only temporary, whereas Orlando does not have to give up the emotional enlightenment that he has experienced in the forest. This causes Bloom to raise the question: What is Shakespeare’s relation to the sexual politics in As You Like It? Is he taking an ironic and critical stance toward the patriarchal solution of his characters, or is he heavily invested in the solution himself?. I tend to lean toward the former because Shakespeare’s women in Love’s Labor’s Lost do not give up their independence in the end. Perhaps the two elements of female power kept managable, and male power kept loving provided a solution that was, at the time, “As Shakespeare Liked It”.

Cleopatra, to me, is the most complex character of the four women discussed in this essay, due in part to the dramatic range of emotions that she displays. Cleopatra is voluptuous, ostentatious, conscious, boastful, intelligent, haughty, tyrannical, fickle, tender, and loving. All of these traits combine to form an extremely complex woman and her complexity is further exemplified when Octavia is introduced as a dull foil to her. Shakespeare presents the prototypical acceptable woman in Octavia, and the independent woman of self-sovereignty in Cleopatra. Shakespeare suggests that a woman of power has the unusual opportunity of combining her sexual and political selves. Cleopatra commands others and is sovereign over herself.

The image of Cleopatra riding the great beats of Antony’s heart, “…in the scuffles of great fights hath burst, / The buckles on his breast”, sets forth an image of Cleopatra as conqueror and he her captive. This, however, oversimplifies the situation. As Bloom shows us, Cleopatra is a study in contrasts. She loves Antony, yet sends him word that she has killed herself. She can be teased by her serving women, but threatens her messenger with a knife. She grandly speaks of having Herod’s head, trades bawdy jests with her eunuch, dreams of lovers who were kings, taunts Antony, flatters Caesar’s servant, outwits Caesar, and quarrels with Enobarbus. She is what she is because of her complete lack of resemblance to a typical, acceptable woman.

Nevertheless, since she lives in a patriarchal society, like Rosalind, she may still be limited by stereotypes for female behavior and subject to the rules established by the dominant group. In fact, Shakespeare creates male characters who express the views of society. They challenge her right to self-sovereignty. She is a “strumpet” and a “gypsy” to them. Enobarbus frequently denigrates Cleopatra as a person of power. Enobarbus offers his perceptions of Cleopatra when he is joking with the group surrounding the soothsayer; he suddenly warns, “Hush, here comes Antony”. Bloom submits that Enobarbus’ reference to Cleopatra as “Antony” reflects his own critical attitude toward this woman whose strength and self-confidence continually assaults and confuses him. It is exactly these traits, though, that make Cleopatra who she is-a sexual being and a person of power. She sees no need to “unsex” herself to prove her role, and she ultimately uses the male perception of a woman to outwit Caesar who plans to take her back to Rome as a hostage. Intent on dying, she knows that she must persuade Caesar of her desire to live if he is to be careless about guarding her, and she achieves her goal with cunning and genius.

The character of Cleopatra suggests the potential for women if they could have self-sovereignty and function as complete people, not in a sexless world where, like Queen Elizabeth, they must choose between marriage and career, but in a world where true mutuality might exist between men and women. Shakespeare forces us to observe Cleopatra as the one character who spans the entire drama. Capable, politically astute, and imaginative, it would be laughable to see her as a character who should lose her identity in a hierarchical society because she is a woman.

In conclusion, it would be fair to say that while Shakespeare does, in fact, break the mold of the commonly held perception of an Elizabethan woman, he does not allow his characters to completely avoid the bias of a male-dominated society. I believe that this only serves to lend more authenticity to the characters. Perhaps, as Bloom suggests, Shakespeare speculated with an ideal, wondering what might result if the concept of marriage and gender were not hierarchical, but more equal. What if the kind of relationship he envisioned meant mutual respect between two equals, like Antony and Cleopatra, who also loved one another? Would we not then have a richer society because one half of it were no longer limiting the role of the other half? If this is the ideal that Shakespeare had in the back of his mind, then it is indeed, “As We Like It”.

“All’s Well That Ends Well” is about the ofttimes unfortunate and comedic discrepancy between word and deed. It’s an exploration of the tension between saying and doing as represented by such duplicitous characters as the aptly named Parolles and the clown Lavatch, or in the misguided and elitist behavior of Bertram, and at the core of Helena’s values-an intrinsic consistency of word equals deed that Bertram fails to grasp even when she presents him with the play’s two deal-makers, the ring and unborn child.

Unlike those around her, Helena is what she says she is and does what she says she’ll do-almost. For even Helena, the peerless example of virtue, must stoop to subterfuge in order to move through this world where “the fine’s the crown” (Shakespeare 569). But that’s Shakespeare for you, isn’t it?

Do the ends justify the means? Can a thing be and do what it says? Ironically, in Shakespeare a thing is a thing, yet it may be something entirely different in order to prove that things must be and do what they say. For Shakespeare makes use of the double-entendre, simile, metaphor, and all manner of linguistic devices as well as the aforementioned plot devices in his plays. Shakespeare is the master of employing “both” “and”.

It’s no surprise, then, that at the play’s end we find Helena transformed from a wife in name alone to a corporeal and worthy woman who is at once herself (which she was at the start of the play) and now somehow more of herself. This is a play in which a person or thing is not a matter of words alone, but has value in and of itself if it is true-if it is well. “All’s” well that ends well: all=everything. Not partially, not proportionally, but “all”. And Helena is the only character that has “all”. No wonder Shakespeare has her mouth the lines “All well that ends well!” (569).

The moment we talk about red rose, love and romance fill our senses. This is because a red rose has been a symbol of love for ages. It has been widely used by poets as an emblem of love, beauty and their beloveds. In paintings as well, artists use red rose as a sign of love, romance, youth and beauty. It is a universal symbol which knows no cultural or geographical boundaries.

Great poets and dramatists like William Shakespeare and Robert Burns employed this symbol in their dramas and poetry and this tradition has continued till today. However, in the present era, red rose has earned more significance that is symbolic and now it is used as a sign of valor, admiration, and success as well.

Over the centuries, the most popular significance of red rose has always been love and romance. It has been used as a gift to lovers and beloved in all countries and in all ages.

The history of red rose is also very interesting. It was brought to Europe from China during 1800’s. From then onwards, all cultures around the world have used them in their customary wedding apparel as well as to embellish many ceremonies including weddings and engagements.

Owing to this, red rose gained popularity as an insignia of love and romance. It is wonderful to note that this tradition has survived, in fact flourished over centuries and red rose has become a sort of official representation of love and emotions.

If you love someone, the first thing you do to express your feelings is to send him/her a rose or a bouquet of these romantic and charming flowers. Its enchaining aroma also enriches its worth for lovers.

Red roses are exchanged on occasions including anniversaries, Valentine’s days, birthdays of your beloved etc. Although it is being used for many centuries now, yet the value of red rose has not decreased. No other flower other than red rose has got an honor of this stature in the history of the flower world.

One of the most amazing aspects of William Shakespeare’s plays is their diversity. While some playwrights fit into one genre and stay there, William Shakespeare had a far more diverse career. His body of work includes comedies, histories, dark comedies and, of course, tragedies. Out of all of William Shakespeare’s plays, it would be safe to say his tragedies were among his best and most famous works.

Understanding the Tragedies

The plays that fall under the category include MacBeth, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet. Needless to say, it is obvious why William Shakespeare’s tragedies are so well received. The aforementioned plays are among the most stirring work he had created. That is why they are still studied and performed to a significant degree while other plays receive significantly less attention. This brings about an interesting question. Why would these dark tragedies be more popular than lighthearted (yet brilliant) fare such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream?

Not Nihilism

If there was a major misconception about the tragedies of William Shakespeare is that they are nihilistic tales. That is, there is a (false) assumption these plays are downbeat and filled with misery. The world the heroes of these plays live often appears dark and ominous. It would seem the hero’s sad end betrays the fact that the world is without hope. “Seem” and “appear” are the operative word here. Such a dark view of the plays such an opinion of the plays is not exactly accurate. In actuality, the tragedies of William Shakespeare provide an insight into hope through their dark proceedings. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to consider the tragedies of William Shakespeare to be nihilistic at their core.

The MacBeth Example

Consider the tale of MacBeth. MacBeth is a character whose ambition leads him to commit acts of atrocity and murder. While these actions do allow MacBeth to arrive at the throne of power, they are ultimately his undoing. From this play, the reader/audience member is left with a very powerful message: ruthlessness comes with consequence and power achieved without legitimacy is fleeting. Again, on the surface, this would seem like a dark message but it is more of a cautionary tale. Actually, it is a very enduring cautionary tale. Even after several centuries have passed since the first performance of the play, the message of MacBeth is heeded. The power of the message of MacBeth still resonates today as it did 500 years ago. A dark, hopeless play or message could never have the ability to be so everlasting. It is the positive undercurrent of the play that allows it to maintain its relevancy.

Common Themes

Similarly, each tragedy William Shakespeare wrote had its own individual theme and moral tale. Hamlet’s obsession for revenge can be considered his undoing. Romeo and Juliet show the dire consequences of seething hatred. King Lear presents the problems inherent with being blind to one’s family’s difficulties. Yes, while within each play there are tragic consequences, there are also moral directions provided to avoid such consequences. That, in and of itself, provides the basis for positivism and not one of nihilism.

Although it was produced in 1604, William Shakespeare’s play Othello still relates to the everyday situations of certain people. In the play, Shakespeare gives the reader situations of misguided trust, wrongful mistrust, and overpowering love. All of which are still around in modern lives, especially that of my own.

Today it often occurs that people tend to keep their enemies closer than their friends. This is done in hopes that the person can undermine his enemy with friendly persuasion to participate in a wrong doing rather than using brute force. In the story, Iago befriends Othello in hopes of one day gaining Cassio’s position of Lieutenant. Because he feels overlooked for the position, Iago convinces Othello that his wife Desdemona has cheated on him with Cassio to ruin the trust Othello and Cassio have for each other. This has also happened in my life; when I was dating my last girlfriend, a guy at school, or my so called Iago, tried his hardest to become my friend and convince me that my girlfriend was cheating on me with my best friend. The situation even got to the point where he had tried to plant evidence to prove his accusations.

As a result of the false friendships, there was also an added mistrust towards the women of both Othello’s and my own lives. When Iago hid the handkerchief in Cassio’s possession, Othello asked Desdemona if she had her handkerchief and of course she could not find it; Othello then begins to accept Iago’s accusations of Desdemona’s unfaithfulness, and like Othello, I also began to wonder if my girlfriend might actually be unfaithful to me.

Shakespeare’s sonnets require time and effort to appreciate. Understanding the numerous meanings of the lines, the crisply made references, the brilliance of the images, and the complexity of the sound, rhythm and structure of the verse demands attention and experience. The rewards are plentiful as few writers have ever approached the richness of Shakespeare’s prose and poetry.

“Sonnet XVIII” is also known as, “Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer’s Day?” It was written around 1599 and published with over 150 other sonnets in 1609 by Thomas Thorpe.

The first 126 sonnets are written to a youth, a boy, probably about 19, and perhaps specifically, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. His initials, W.H., appear in Thorpe’s dedication, and the first volume of Shakespeare’s plays, published by two of his fellow actors, Herminge and Condell, after Shakespeare’s death, was dedicated to William Herbert.

“Sonnet XVIII” is one of the most famous of all of Shakespeare’s sonnets. It is written in the sonnet style that Shakespeare preferred, 14 lines long with three quatrains (four rhymed lines) and a couplet (a pair of rhymed lines).

The Sonnet praises the youth’s beauty and disposition, comparing and contrasting the youth to a summer day. Then the sonnet immortalizes the youth through the “eternal lines” of the sonnet.

First Quatrain

The first line announces the comparison of the youth with a summer day. But the second line says that the youth is more perfect than a summer day. “More temperate” can be interpreted as more gentle. A summer day can have excesses such as rough winds. In Shakespeare’s time May was considered a summer month, a reference in the third line. The fourth line contains the metaphor that summer holds a lease on the year, but the lease is of a short duration.

Second Quatrain

This quatrain details how the summer can be imperfect, traits that the youth does not possess. The fifth line personifies the sun as “the eye of heaven” which is sometimes too scorchingly hot. On the other hand, “his gold complexion,” the face of the sun, can be dimmed by overcast and clouds. According to line 7, all beautiful things (fair means beautiful) sometimes decline from their state of beauty or perfection by chance accidents or by natural events. “Untrimmed” in line 8 means a lack of decoration and perhaps refers to every beauty from line 7.

Third Quatrain

This quatrain explains that the youth will possess eternal beauty and perfection. In line 10 “ow’st” is short for ownest, meaning possess. In other words, the youth “shall not lose any of your beauty.” Line 11 says that death will not conquer life and may refer to the shades of classical literature (Virgil’s Aeneid) who wander helplessly in the underworld. In line 12 “eternal lines” refers to the undying lines of the sonnet. Shakespeare realized that the sonnet is able to achieve an eternal status, and that one could be immortalized within it.

The Final Couplet

The couplet is easy to interpret. For as long as humans live and breathe on earth with eyes that can see, this is how long these verses will live. And these verses celebrate the youth and continually renew the youth’s life.

“Shall I Compare Thee” is one of the most often quoted sonnets of Shakespeare. It is complex, yet elegant and memorable, and can be quoted by men and women alike. It has been enjoyed by all generations since Shakespeare and will continue to be enjoyed “so long as men can breathe, or eyes can see.”

Sonnet XVIII, Shall I Compare Thee?

By William Shakespeare

Shall I compare thee to a Summer’s day?

Thou are more lovely and more temperate:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,

And Summer’s lease hath all too short a date:

Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,

And often is his gold complexion dimm’d;

And every fair from fair sometime declines,

By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm’d:

But thy eternal Summer shall not fade

Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st;

Nor shall Death brag thou wander’st in his shade,

When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st:

So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,

So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

Among the most powerful tragedies in the English language, Hamlet is a drama set in Denmark, where Prince Hamlet exacts blood revenge on his uncle Claudius for murdering his father, the King, usurpation of the throne, and for marrying his mother, who readily consented, much to his disillusionment, thus laying the foundation for real and feigned madness - from unspeakable grief to livid rage, thereby giving Shakespeare the grounds to explore the themes of tragic waste, revenge, incest and moral deprivation - all at once

The universality of Shakespeare’s genius is in some sort reflected in Hamlet. Hamlet has a mind wise and witty, abstract and practical, the utmost reach of philosophical contemplation is mingled with most penetrating sagacity in the affairs of life; playful jest, biting satire, sparkling repartee blended with the darkest and deepest thoughts which can agitate man. He swiftly divines the nature and motives of those who are brought into contact with him. He is equally at home whether he is mocking Polonius with hidden raillery, or dissipating Ophelia’s dreams of love, or crushing the sponges (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - a pair of servants and childhood friends of Hamlet) with sarcasm and invective, or talking euphemism with Osric and satirizing while he talks it, whether he is uttering wise maxims or welcoming the Players with facetious graciousness, probing the innermost soul of others or sounding the mysteries of his own.

Shakespeare has created Hamlet by presenting him in all sorts of company. We see him with the girl (Ophelia) he loves and with the mother (Gertrude) he has adored. We see him with the closest friend (Horatio) whose temperament is the compliment of his, and we see him with his school fellows as he once knew them. He is a very different person with Claudius, Leartes and with Polonius. We laugh with him at Osric, with him we hold our breath in the dread presence of the Ghost. Perhaps he charms us most when he is with the common people, with the Players and the grave-digger. And then above all we listen to Hamlet when he is alone. He confides to us his many moods. We know what others think of him, we know what he thinks of others, and we know what he thinks of himself.

It follows that Hamlet is the most many-sided of Shakespeare’s creations. Hamlet might indeed say with the poet Walt Whitman: “I am large, I contain multitudes”.

Hamlet is at once individual and universal. He is Everyman, he is courtier, soldier and scholar - the Elizabethan ideal which combined the chivalry of the Middle Ages with the intellectual curiosity of the Renaissance. The fact that critics would never leave Hamlet alone, the futile endeavour to pluck out the heart of the mystery, is surely the best evidence that the real and the lasting mystery of the human situation has been greatly depicted.

Hamlet, then, is Hamlet; Hamlet is Sir Philip Sidney; Hamlet is Richard Burbage. He is Goethe and Coleridge. He is you and I. He is William Shakespeare. He is an individual and yet more than individual; he is larger than life. In Hamlet the prince Shakespeare has held up a mirror not merely to the age but to Nature or humanity. “I have a smack of Hamlet myself,” confesses Coleridge, and Hazlitt repeats the same view: “It is we who are Hamlet”. ]]> http://www.william-shakespeare.us/Shakespeare-Blog/william-shakespeare/brief-review-on-hamlet-by-william-shakespeare/feed http://www.william-shakespeare.us/Shakespeare-Blog/william-shakespeare/william-shakespeare-life-history-and-career http://www.william-shakespeare.us/Shakespeare-Blog/william-shakespeare/william-shakespeare-life-history-and-career#comments Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:02:58 +0000 admin http://www.william-shakespeare.us/Shakespeare-Blog/?p=7

William Shakespeare Life History and biography

Early Life

William Shakespeare was born on 26 April 1564 and died on 23 April 1616. He was a famous playwright and an English poet. In the English language, William Shakespeare is regarded as one of the greatest writer and is also considered as one of the pre-eminent dramatist. According to recent research, he has written various poems, 38 plays and 154 sonnets, as well as a variety of other poems. Many of the times, he is known as national poet of England and “Bard of Avon” or simply “The Bard”.

William Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon and was raised here. At the age of eighteen he married Anne Hathaway and then from which hey had three children. Shakespeare went to London between 1585 and 1592 and there he became an actor, writer and Lord Chamberlain’s Men, which was later known as King’s Men’s part owner and from this he got huge financial success. Shakespeare died in 1613 at the age of 52 in Stratford.

Play

All of the plays, which were attributed to William Shakespeare career, were not completely written by him. Revision, collaboration or both are found sometimes in writings of Shakespeare. Accurate establishment of Shakespeare’s plays cannot be made for chronology. During his lifetime, quarto versions were printed which varied the quality. However, no evidence was found regarding the involvement of Shakespeare in this publication. In 1623, after seven years of death of Shakespeare, two former colleague of Shakespeare, John Heminges and Henry Condell published the book First Folio. There were 36 Shakespeare’s plays, and remained the only extant source for around sixteen of them.

Sonnets

Collection of approximately 154 poems combines to a sonnet of Shakespeare which has the themes of love, beauty, and mortality and this style is named as the Shakespearean sonnet, and today also this is in use. The poem included in the sonnet comprises of 14 lines with 3 quatrains, and closing couplet follows these lines and quatrains. The rhyme scheme which is followed is abab cdcd efef gg (each letter corresponding to a rhyming line).

In the year 1609, from these 154 poems, two poems were published in SHAKE-SPEARE’S Sonnets; which numbers are138 (”When my love swears that she is made of truth”) and 144 (”Two loves have I, of comfort and despair”) and these were initially published in 1599 in The Passionate Pilgrim.

Style

When we will look and read Shakespeare poems and plays it will be observed that some passages written by Shakespeare are in prose, and his plays and poems large portion is written in iambic pentameter. In order to strengthen the rhythm, punctuation was added in his early works. For evaluating the poetry of drama, Shakespeare and other dramatists of his time occasionally used this type of blank verses for dialogues between characters. Macbeth is a typical example for the same, in which stage was left by Macbeth in order to murder Duncan and he says:
“Hear it not Duncan; for it is a knell that summons thee to heaven or to hell.”

Reputation

Shakespeare was not pre-eminent in his life but gained popularity during the same. He was singled out by Francis Meres in 1598, from the English poets group, which was compared by him with the Greece and Rome greatest, and he was described among the English poets as “the most excellent” for both comedy and tragedy. Ben Johnson, who was his rival, after his death, gave him both praise and criticism. According to him, Shakespeare was “soul of the age, the applause, delight, the wonder of our stage”.