Discovering Shakespeare’s Meaning

Chapter.5 Parallel Actions

김선이 , 최혜민 , 채수은 , 김홍철 , 전지이 , 김대운

Parallel Action• SP’s plays: usually trace 2-3 sequence of events-> Characters- contact with one another Ex) Much Ado About NothigHero& Claudio- Beatrice & Benedick - echoed As You Like It isRosalind& orlando- Phebe& Silvius, Touchstone & Audrey Celia & Oliver - echoed

• The function of multiple plotting varies from play to play

• The secondare actions/ the subsidery ac-tions:

- Duplicate the events of the main plot- Universalizing the issue involved- Or, contrast: view from a different

perspective• Contribution to meaning of the whole

- Not only ramification of events- But though the relationship between

those events, forms principal focus of audience attention.

• King Lear- Most notable parallel plotMain plot + repeated on a slightly lower social levelMain plotKing Lear-> is deceived by two treacherous daughters

-> vanished loyal daughter, CordeliaSub plotEarl of Gloucester -> deluded disloyal son, Edmund ->

banished loving son, Edgor• Both cases-Unnatural offspring: Turn on their fathers-Undergo a period of physical & mental suffering before being succoured by their loyal children-Reaching some understanding prior to their death

Reinforced b y a more complex web of correspondences

• Lear- Most deceived

while sane- Fuller understand-

ing through mad-ness

• Gloucester-Sees least when he

has sight-Comes to perceive

when blind

• Function of duplicatoin is complex• Simplest level: universalize the events of the main

plot• Lear’s experience = One man’s experience-When paralleled by another man in same society

* The experience is generalized* Becomes applicable to all fathers

• Lear as King is perverse- > Unnatural dislocation of family relationship in the

sub- plot world- > Unnatural state brought into being by the abnormal

conduct of king• Parallel-Gloucester plot: elevating the central figure-Lear’s act: made more fully comprehensible

• Parallel-Principal methods of plot construction in Renais-

sance drama as a whole-Correspondences, impossible to overlook• Elizabethan-Jacobean theatrical conven-

tions-less obtrusive, unfamiliar-other aspects of the dramatic technique appear

to approximate to those of our own age-use of soliloquy-emphasis on the personal experience of the

central figure-psychological based interpretation focused view

of the hero himself

• Psychological case history is to distort it

• Elizabethan-Jacobean drama-revenge play evolved through: multiplicity of plots1. Vengeance of one individual precipitating plot2. Counter-plot throughout the social group

Ex) Spanish TragedyVengeance – revenge for Don Andrea lead to violent

action-> Lorenzo, Bel-imperia, HieronimoAntonio’s Revenge: Similar to Hamlet

5 revengers-> Villain, Piero

• SP’s play + revenge genre• 4 revengers-all concerned with the death of a fa-

ther-subject to some delay in the execution

of their purpose*Hamlet, Fortin bras, Pyrrhus, Laertes

• Judgments made by the audience are not identical

• Pyrrhus- overlookedThe play within a play diminishes Pyrrhus’s reality within the drama structure

Act 2, scene 2: -line 328-358, 364, 376-398, 427-428The lengthy introduction to the players

in relation to the performance of The Murder of Gonzago in the following act,

Hamlet hopes to make clausius reveal his guilt.

Speeches:-considerable significance in relation to the theme

of the play-no way advance the central action• Complete revenge play in miniature• Correspond to Hamlet it selfHamlet -Recite the opening passage: Pyrrhus is described-Heightening the audience’s awarencess of the par-

allet between the persons of the play world and those of the play within the play

-Inviting comparison between the two

• Objective evidenceThe vengeance of Prrhus: complicatesAct 2, scene 2: 446-459Hamlet begins with a false start:Effect- naturalisticBut- misquotation initiates image strands followingsHyrcanian beast= Tiger, predatory animal

Black & red, Rugged= Tiger recalled, emphasis on bloodSable= Prrhus called himself, black, night, dreadHeraldry more dismal= blacknessTotal gules= redHorridly tricked with blood, pasted with ‘gore’Two colors= black & red represent the darkness and flames of hell

Expressions of Parallel Ac-tions in Hamlet

• Barbarous and diabolic nature of revenger + The human worth of his victims Ex. -Shakespeare used ‘fathers, mothers, daughters, sons’(454) ->stressing natural bonds and the loss in-volved through death for whole family group. - The king (target of the revenge) : Power and authority (X) Age and Kinship (O)

The king and his sword• The king - The object of vengeance+ the impotence and

dignity of ageing majesty• His sword - antique(465),Rebellious to his arm(466), Unequal match’d’(467),Unnerved(470) + His ancient and inherited office father(470), His head is milky(474),

reverend(475)

Hecuba• Streesed Violation of natural bonds + Human vulnerability• Herself (As a wife and mother) - No sign to show her high class : Barefoot(501), cloth on her head instead of a

diadem(502-3), clasped blanket on her(504-5)-> To the audience - Feel pity(Her appearance) + dissatisfaction(The witness of murder)

　• Correspondence between “Dramatis person of Hamlet itself” + “The play-within-the-play” invites the audience to - consider relationship between

two - apply deduction about one to the

another

Relationship between play and playlet

• To receive a further dimension & ad-ditional point of correspondence be-tween play and playlet

Ex : Precipitate as Pyrrhus’ vengeance = like Hamlet’s

->not accomplished without delay

　• Emblematic representation of Hamlet’s posture - The capacity to exact vengeance -> The will of the revenger paralysed.• Pyrrhus’ conduct (The significance of the paral-

lel lies) - Tyrant(476) + Reverend(475) old man - His hesitation : An act of clemency or divine intervention(x) : The prelude to an act of violence with machine-

like pitilessness

　• The audience might think that the task before Hamlet is no easy one.

-> However, Hamlet himself does not view the player’s speeches from the same perspective as the audience.

-The audience: appalled by the horrific act

-Hamlet: impressed by the First player reflects on the discrepancy

between his own responses to actual experience & the player’s response

• Outside the play world understand ->Why Hamlet complain himself for

his indifference & Fallacy of his posi-tion

• The Player’s emotion->Self-gener-ated.

Not a response to experience.

Examples• Hamlet -himself pointed out in a soliloquy • His mother -”Like Niobe, all tears”(I.ii.149) before

getting marry->External shows of emtion : is not a true grief

　• Soliloquy - Widens the gulf between the spec-

taor’s perceptions & those of the speaker.

Ex. Hamlet’s inability to respond to his father’s murder

• Without the playlet(preceding the so-liloquy)

- The audience: accept this conclusion -

parallel revenger • The term used to explain the relationship

between Young Hamlet, Young Fortinbras and Elder Hamlet, Elder Fortinbras. image that is projected of the parallel revenger is a negative one.

• Both Elder Fortinbras and Elder Hamlet die at another man's hand, the Norwegian (Elder Fortinbras) was killed honorably the Dane(Elder Hamlet) dishonorably by an act of treachery.

• Superficial level-contrast between the violent ends of the two kings suggests that vengeance for the death of a fa-ther is not necessarily morally justifi-able.

• Fortinbras and his uncle are shown in a relationship which is pretty similar to hamlet and Claudius's relationship.

fortinbras - his uncle hamlet - claudius

• The captain of the army from Norwey have a conversation with hamlet, and they talk about the value of the land that fortinbras is trying to get back. The captain sees the land fortinbras is about to fight for as hav-ing 'no profit but the name'. (as being worthless as farm land and valueless on the open market.)

This is th' impostume of much wealth and peace, that inward breaks, and shows no cause withoutwhy the man dies,

(27-9)

contrast between his conduct and that of the Norwegian prince

• the judgement of speaker and listener begin to diverge. hamlet offers two possible explanations for his delay in exacting vengeance

1. bestial oblivion 2. thinking too precisely on th'event' Neither explanation can be fully endorsed by the

audience. As hamlet himself has just pointed out , it is the extent to which man applies his reason that is the measure of his 'godlike' nature.

• contrast between his objective and subjective responses to what

he has witnessed

Negative When speaking to the captain, he uses the word negatively:

Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats Will not debate the question of this straw! This is th' impostume of much wealth and peace- (25-7)

Positive When he contrasts fortinbras' conduct with his own the context is positive:

Rightly to be great Is not to stir without great argument, Butgreatly to find quarrel in a straw When honour's at the stake. (53-6)

Different response of Hamlet and  Laertes

• Hamlet: Though he censures himself for inaction, has tested the truth of the ghost's accusation and is therefore assured that the man he is seeking to bring down is, in fact, his father's murderer.

• Laertes: rushing, by contrast, to the headlong vengeance that Hamlet longs to take, mistakes the source of the wrong that has been done to him and is poised to commit not merely an unjust act in killing an innocent man, but a rebellious one in unlawfully overthrowing the head of state.

Effect of Laertes' action • :provides an implicit comment upon hamlet's

more guarded pursuit of vengeance. His eruption into the court serves, like that of Pyrrhus in the trojan playlet, to elevate the monarch he opposes and to generate sympathy for his queen. He is re-ferred to consistently as the king' he himself sug-gests that his person is hedged about by a 'divin-ity' that disables aggression;

• Laertes, in a blind fury, explicitly allies himself with the powers of darkness, and asserts his readiness to hazard his soul in the pursuit of vengeance:

How came he dead ? I'll not be juggled with. To hell, allegiance! Vows to the blackest devil! Conscience and grace, to the profoundest pit! I dare damnation. To this point I stand, That both the worlds I give to negligence, Let come what comes, only I'll be reveng'd Most throughly for my father. (130-6)

Laertes

To his good friends thus wide I'll ope my arms;And like the kind life-rendering pelican,Repast them with my blood.

Claudius 

Why, now you speakLike a good child and a true gentleman.

( ACT IV SCENE V 145-148 )

The blasphemous connotation

Claudius  Laertes, was your father dear to you?

Or are you like the painting of a sorrow, A face without a heart?

Laertes Why ask you this? Claudius Not that I think you did not love your father;

But that I know love is begun by time; And that I see, in passages of proof, Time qualifies the spark and fire of it. There lives within the very flame of love A kind of wick or snuff that will abate it; And nothing is at a like goodness still; For goodness, growing to a pleurisy, Dies in his own too much: that we would do

We should do when we would; for this 'would' changes And hath abatements and delays as many As there are tongues, are hands, are accidents; And then this 'should' is like a spendthrift sigh, That hurts by easing.

( ACT IV SCENE VII 106-122 )

Application to Hamlet

Positive value of de-lay

~what would you undertake,

To show yourself your father's son in deed More than in words?

Laertes To cut his throat i' the church.

Claudius No place, indeed, should murder sanctuar-

ize; Revenge should have no bounds. (ACT IV SCENE VII 124-

129)

Application to Hamlet , again

Claudius Most generous and free from all contriving,

Will not peruse the foils; so that, with ease, Or with a little shuffling, you may choose A sword unbated, and in a pass of practise Requite him for your father.

Laertes  I will do't: And, for that purpose, I'll anoint my sword. I bought an unction of a mountebank, So mortal that, but dip a knife in it, Where it draws blood no cataplasm so rare, Collected from all simples that have virtue Under the moon, can save the thing from death That is but scratch'd withal: I'll touch my point With this contagion, that, if I gall him slightly, It may be death.

(ACT IV SCENE VII 135-148)

dishonourable vengeance

Hamlet’s generosity of spirit

Hamlet I, the son of a dear father murder'd,

Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with words, And fall a-cursing, like a very drab,

(ACT II SCENE II 581-584)

Relationship be-tween appearance and reality

LAERTES 

It is here, Hamlet: Hamlet, thou art slain;No medicine in the world can do thee good;In thee there is not half an hour of life;The treacherous instrument is in thy hand,Unbated and envenom'd: the foul practiseHath turn'd itself on me lo, here I lie,Never to rise again: thy mother's poison'd:I can no more: the king, the king's to blame.

(ACT V SCENE II 317-324)

The final confronta-tion between the two men and the vengeance of both

Vengenance of Hamlet• Hamlet’s vengenance : • He himself doesn’t plan or contrive

the murder of Claudius and he doesn’t rush into headlong action

• He constantly test the truth of the Ghost’s assertions and neglect the opportunity to kill Claudius since he was praying

• He came to content to see himself that he is part of the providential plan too, rather than an instigator of actions.

• Hamlet believed that ‘divinity shapes our ends’ and ascribe the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to providential plan

• Therefore, the vengeance that he fi-nally executes is planned not by him but by Claudius, or by the providen-tial acting through him.

• Thus he is freed from both blame and self-reproch for Claudius’ death, and succeeds in killing his adversary without diminishing himself or elevat-ing his opponent.

Hamlet’s character• Readers and audience are lead to the view

that he is inherently noble man, tainted by the world he inhabits and thus incapable of acting coherently in it.

• With the examples of Pyrrhus, Fortinbras, and Laertes before him the reader or spectator cannot regard Hamlet’s failure to sweep to his revenge as a flaw, when those who embrace this course of action are presented as animalistic and diabolic

Audience awareness• On the one hand, the reader or audience

is encouraged to participate in Hamlet’s self-disgust through his soliloquies, and to share his desire to extirpate the evil which Claudius embodies.

• On the other hand, they are made aware of the danger to the individual implicit in the exaction of vengeance, and feels concern for the moral safety of Hamlet

• The audience are led to confront the issues that Hamlet struggles, and they struggle through him, too.

• They face the problem of reconciling the need to fulfill the injunctions for the Ghost with the viciousness of private vengeance.

• They also think over the attributes which distinguish the central figure from the sub-sidiary revengers, which differentiate a man from a beast.

Thought journey of Hamlet• Thinking too precisely on the ‘event’ is the key fea-

ture that makes differences between the Prince and Pyrrhus, Frotinbras and Laertes.

• Thought journey leads him to a recognition of the inevitability of death, the incomprehensibility of human life, and to the existence of a divinity that ‘shapes our ends’

• Audiences, faced with an unthinking Pyrrhus, Fort-inbras, and Laertes, recognize the distance be-tween the Prince and his fellow revengers and think his thought journey is not of the diseased will fo the protagonist but of his human greatness.

The use of parallel actions• It is not exclusive to the tragedies and other

‘problem plays’ all feature complementary plots which contribute to the definition of character.

• The relationship between these primary and secondary areas of interest does not, however, remain constant

• Ex) King Lear, exemplifies a kind of structure by a process of repetition while Hamlet con-trast the conduct of a series of figures placed in a similar situation.

• In Measure for Measure, the relation-ship between main and subplot char-acters evolves in a different direction.

• Ex) Hamlet starts from the point of likeness and moves towards the reve-lation of difference

• Ex) Measure for Measure, starts from the point of difference and moves to-wards the recognition of likeness.

Measure for Measure• Its outset appears with the most and least

idealistic figures. • Angelo is a man of rigid self-discipline, whose

public virtue is such he is entrusted by the Duke with the task of purging Vienna of vice.

• He is determined to administer strict, impar-tial justice in the interests of the whole com-munity.

• The law Angelo is attempted to uphold is an edict against fornication.

• The two groups of the enforcements of the process – a pair of lovers, Claudio and Juilet, and the associates of a bawd, Mistress Overdone.

• Claudio and Juilet are betrothed, but they don’t wait until they are publicly bestowed and ex-pecting a baby before it.

• Lucio, who has exact opposite personality to Angelo, is one of Mistress Overdone’s principal customers. He embraces the promptings of the flesh with no sense of guilt.

• However, the distance between Angelo, Clau-dio and Lucio is narrowed when Isabella, Clau-dio’s sister is induced to plead with Angelo on her brother’s behalf.

Change in positions of Three men

Angelo

Angelo, Claudio, fornication Lucio

Claudio, Lucio

Parallel Actions in Measure for Measure

1. Progress of Angelo : subverts the spectator’s initial preconceptions about

the nature of the play world.Outset : Simple Oppositon between reformers(good)

and those in need of reformation(bad).

Angelo’s surrender to passion for Isabella

Simplistic division of mankind into good and bad is rapidly overthrown.

(1)Good Bad fornication , perjury (II.iv.159, V.i.232-7)

a. Fallibility of the most self-diciplined and most ideal-istic of men has been ex-posed.

b. Human failings-lust, men-dacity, cowardice- that link an Angelo to a Lucio have been revealed.

(2) Bad GoodPositive aspects of the less vir-

tuous charact-ers have emerged.

a. Claudio (I.ii.117-22, III.i.170) ; a capacity for repentance cf. Angelo (V.i.364-72) ; only belatedly exhibits re-pen-

tanceb. Lucio (I.iv.16-84, II.ii.25-162) ; treats Isabella with greate re-

spect ; goes to considerable length to

save Claudio’s life

In short, the pure and the impure emerge, by the final act, as mere mortal men, compounded of both vices and virtues, and with capacity for both good and

evil.

2. Careers of Angelo’s fellow fornicators : contribute to the exploration of a central prob-

lem – administration of justice. three men are supposed to be executed by the law

though the offences the three men commit are similar, the attitudes and intentions of those that commit them are radically different

(1) Angelo (2) Claudio (3) Lucio

(1)Angelo : blackmails a chaste woman into going to

bed with him. -> involved in the gross abuse of both his

office and another person -> instrumental in the violation of a reli-

gious commitment (Isabella was in the process of entering a convent)

: motivated not by love, but by lust : his attitude are violent and unhealthy

Fit thy consent to my sharp appetite;Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushesThat banish what they sue for. Redeem thy brotherBy yielding up thy body to my will;Or else he must not only die the death,But thy unkindness shall his death draw outTo ling’ring sufferance. (II.iv.160-6)

(2) Claudio : by contrast, loves and is loved by Juliet. : The imagery surrounding their relationship

contrast forcibly with that employed by Angelo. (They are married in the eyes of God in that they are betrothed, while their union is naturally fruitful in outcome)

Fewness and truth; ‘tis thus: Your brother[i.e. Claudio] and his lover have em-

brac’d, As those that feed grow full, as blssoming time That from the seedness the bare fallow brings To teeming foison, even so her plenteous womb Expresseth his full tilth and husbandry. (I.iv.39-44)

(3) Lucio : his attitudes have more in common with An-

gelo’s than Claudio’s (Both are motivated by lust)

: However, Lucio’s offence is casual. a. Angelo acts with a consciousness of sin b. Lucio - has no sense of guilt - has nothing but contempts for his partner in

them

Lucio. I was once before him [the Duke] for getting a wench with child.

Duke. Did you such a thing?Lucio. Yes, marry, did I; but I was fain to forswear it; they would else have married me to the rotten

medlar. (IV.iii.167-72)

Parallel Offences of Angelo, Claudio, and Lucio

Expose the limitations of justice Require a much more subtle concept of

justice Problem of administering justice in a

fallen world

Parallel offences of three men 1. exposes the limitations of Angelo’s proposition that

every crime should have its allotted punishment. give evidence of human fallibility in the same way However, Degree of culpability is radically different. a. Angelo : to violate b. Lucio : exploits c. Claudio : wish to establish an enduring and sanc-

tified relationship Misdemeanours of the three man intentions ( gravity of the offence) Similar distinguished

2. failings call for a much more subtle concept of justice

3. Problem of administering justice in a fallen world

- all men are culpable and no man inveterately vicious

Parallel actions allowing right per-ception

1. The main plot of the Measure for Measure may exist alone without the parallel plots

2. But, without the parallel actions M f M would be a different kind of play.

a. would focus on one idiosyncratic experi-ence

b. might be seen as the tragedy of Angelo3. Seething background supplied by Claudio

and Lucio ensures the career of Angelo is not perceived in these terms.

Parallel actions a. define the nature of human beings b. expose the failings common to all men c. the centre of interest shifts from the out-

standing individual and the problem he confronts to the problem itself.

Measure for Measure : a play about justice

Conclusion1. Although we cannot say parallel actions carry the

entire meaning of any play, the richness of Shakespeare’s designs owes much to the varia-tions that are woven around a central theme.

2. Of the three plays discussed in this chapter, -Hamlet is the one which can best survive the loss

of its parallel plots. -King Lear would be much less horrifying. -Measure for Measure would be far less intellec-

tually challenging.

Conclusion3. Hamlet is also a very important composi-

tion when viewed in its entirety. : not only explores a unique sensibility but

simultaneously holds up a series of mirrors to the seeming irresolution of its central figure – mirrors which reverse conventional assumptions about action and retribution, and transform a culpable failure of will into a towering moral achievement – it becomes a much more profound and original work.