Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts
Department of English
and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Jana Pavlkov
Shakespeares Use of the Supernatural
Masters Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr Pavel Dr!ek" PhD
200
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
..
#uthors signature
2
#$kno%ledgement
& %ould like to thank m' advisor Mgr Pavel Dr!ek" PhD (or his patien$e and valua!le
$omments and to m' Jan (or all his help and support
Table of Contents
3
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................4
2 The Supernatural and Society.........................................................................................6
2.1 General Background................................................................................................7
2.2 Supernatural Traditions...........................................................................................9
3. The Supernatural in ra!a.........................................................................................12
4. Shakespeare and the Supernatural...............................................................................17
4.1. "nalyses ..............................................................................................................1#
4.1.1 The True Tragedy o$ %ichard III &s. %ichard III ...........................................2'
4.1.2 Se(anus) *is +all &s. ,ulius -aesar ..............................................................33
4.1.3 "ntony and -leopatra &s. The Tragedy o$ -leopatra.....................................47
.. -onclusion.....................................................................................................................
1. Introduction
The use o$ the Supernatural in Shakespeare/s 0ork is generally 0ell1kno0n and 0idely
discussed. *e incorporated &arious supernatural ele!ents into !any o$ his plays) 0ith
&arying e2tent and 0ith di$$erent intentions. *e gained popularity $or his !aster$ul use
o$ a ghost in Macbeth and Hamlet as 0ell as $or his portrayal o$ $airies in the
Midsummer Nights Dream and the supernatural at!osphere in the Tempest.
4
Shakespeare/s !anner o$ using the Supernatural) the $unction he attri3utes to it as 0ell
as the i!plying e$$ect thereo$ ha&e 3een su3(ects o$ !any discussions. The topic o$
Shakespeare/s use o$ the Supernatural has 3een ela3orated on 3y !any authors and $ro!
&arious di$$erent perspecti&es. *o0e&er) !ost o$ the 3ooks a&aila3le are co!prehensi&e
and co&er all possi3le $eatures present in all rele&ant Shakespeare/s plays) or) on the
other hand) discuss only a li!ited range o$ plays) although in detail) 0ith a li!ited range
o$ $urther re$erences to other plays4authors. There$ore) such li!ited or) on the other
hand) too 0ide discussions cannot pro&ide rele&ant co!parisons or 3ackground $or
deeper considerations. There$ore) this thesis ai!s to approach this issue $ro! a di$$erent
perspecti&e and 0ill deal 0ith the concept o$ the Supernatural only in three selected
plays o$ 5illia! Shakespeare and 0ill present a co!parison 0ith three pieces o$ dra!a
3y di$$erent authors. The ai! is not to pro&ide another co!prehensi&e su!!ary o$ use
and application o$ supernatural $eatures in Shakespeare/s 0orks in general) 3ut to
present a !ore detailed study 0hich 0ill also consider the in$luence o$ 0orks 3y
Shakespeare/s conte!poraries. This thesis ai!s at a co!parison o$ three selected plays
3y Shakespeare 6Julius Caesar) Antony and Cleopatra and Tragedy of Richard III7 0ith
three other plays so!eti!es regarded 3y scholars as 3eing a!ong the sources o$ the
respecti&e plays 6e!anus) His "all 3y Ben ,onson) Cleopatra 3y Sa!uel aniel and the
anony!ous True History of Richard III7. Bearing these rese!3lances in !ind) the
di$$erences 3et0een the concept o$ the three plays 3y 5illia! Shakespeare) 0hich
include &arious $or!s and ele!ents o$ the Supernatural) and the three counter1plays)
0hich are in respect to the Supernatural rather li!ited) 0ill 3e discussed. This &ery
di$$erence 3et0een the style o$ e!ploy!ent o$ the Supernatural 3y Shakespeare and the
other authors !akes it possi3le to thoroughly analyse the use o$ the supernatural
$eatures as dra!atic de&ices on 3ehal$ o$ Shakespeare) as opposed to rather !ere
re$erences re$lecting the popular 3elie$s o$ that period/s audience on 3ehal$ o$ the other
three authors. *o0e&er) such di&ision o$ the use o$ the Supernatural cannot 3e
generalised and the 8!astery9 should not 3e attri3uted only to Shakespeare. There$ore)
the !ain o3(ecti&e o$ this thesis is) 3ased on the respecti&e analyses) to detect) assess
and e&aluate the actual rele&ance o$ the supernatural $eatures to the dra!a as such) i.e.
to consider the o&erall $ocus o$ the dra!a) the intentions o$ the author and his
pre$erences. The o3(ecti&e is to identi$y the role o$ the Supernatural in the plays
analysed 60ith an e!phasis on Shakespeare7 in the light o$ all possi3le considerations
on the particular pieces o$ dra!a.
.
:rior to the actual analyses) I 0ill introduce the rele&ant 3ackgrounds necessary
$or a thorough discussion o$ the analyses and achie&e!ent o$ the a3o&e set o3(ecti&e.
The $irst t0o chapters 0ill 3e rather descripti&e) 0ith lo0 analytic input. *o0e&er) I
percei&e the! as rele&ant $or the !ain analytical part. In the $irst chapter I 0ill present
the social and cultural 3ackground o$ the 16
th
and 17
th
century concerning the
supernatural) !etaphysical and superstitions in general. The reason $or inclusion o$ this
chapter is the necessity to consider the perception o$ the Supernatural 3y that period/s
society) the stereotypes that apply and the reaction o$ the audience that the author 0ould
ai! $or and could su3se;uently e2pect. This chapter 0ill discuss the relation o$ the
people in that period/s society to0ards the &arious $or!s o$ the Supernatural in light o$
that ti!e/s social as 0ell as religious en&iron!ent.
The second chapter 0ill 3rie$ly discuss the literary traditions kno0n in the ti!e
o$ Shakespeare. The ai! o$ this chapter is to present a short o&er&ie0 o$ the traditions
and inspirations in regards to the Supernatural 0hich can 3e detected in the 0orks o$
Shakespeare as 0ell as so!e o$ the !ost i!portant dra!atists o$ his age) and to suggest
the possi3le sources o$ inspiration in this sphere.
The third chapter 0ill discuss the ;uestion o$ Shakespeare/s use o$ the
Supernatural. "t $irst I 0ill 3rie$ly introduce the &arious styles o$ Shakespeare/s use o$
supernatural ele!ents. *o0e&er) due to the !any pu3lications on this issue and to the
&ery co!prehensi&e in$or!ation a&aila3le) I 0ill only 3rie$ly !ention the !ost
i!portant and rele&ant concepts. The core part o$ this chapter 0ill 3e the si2 analyses)
each discussing the rele&ance and i!portance o$ the Supernatural in the respecti&e play
and its use 3y the authors.
The thesis 0ill 3e concluded 3y a su!!ary and re$lection on the conclusions o$
the indi&idual analyses) 0hich 0ill also consider the general pattern on Shakespeare/s
use o$ the Supernatural) 0hich can 3e interpolated $ollo0ing the analyses.
2 The Supernatural and Society
The o3(ecti&e o$ this chapter is to introduce the socio1cultural 3ackground o$ the 16th
and 17th centuries $ro! the perspecti&e o$ popular 3elie$ o$ the people regarding the
Supernatural. Initially) it is necessary to !ention that the popular 3elie$s o$ the
<li=a3ethan audience 0ere not $unda!entally di$$erent $ro! those o$ people in other
centuries. "lthough each period has its 3elie$s and superstitions as 0ell as speci$ic
6
attitudes to these aspects) people ha&e al0ays 3elie&ed in ghosts) spirits and 0itches as
0ell as in indi&iduals 0ith a3nor!al po0ers and a3ilities. *o0e&er) each period has
also its speci$ics characteristics in relations to these 3elie$s and attri3utes the! di$$erent
i!portance and &alues) and as such the attitude to0ards the Supernatural de&elops and
changes throughout the centuries. >e&ertheless) o0ing to the popularity cross1cutting
the sche!e o$ social strati$ication in the 16th and 17th centuries) supernatural $eatures
are a recurring aspect o$ !any plays o$ that ti!e/s dra!atists. This chapter 0ill 3rie$ly
discuss the rele&ance o$ the !ost popular $or!s o$ the supernatural e!ployed in
Shakespeare/s dra!atic 0orks to his pro3a3le audience and 0ill present an o&er&ie0 o$
general attitudes o$ that ti!e/s population. This o&er&ie0 should contri3ute to
illustration o$ the possi3le e$$ects 0hich Shakespeare could ha&e achie&ed 0hen using
particular $or!s o$ supernatural ele!ents. ?ost o$ the in$or!ation $or this chapter 0as
taken $ro! a &ery co!prehensi&e pu3lication 3y @eith Tho!as The Decline of Magic
and $ro! the $irst part o$ -u!3erland -lark/s ha#espeare and the upernaturalA
ho0e&er) other &alua3le pu3lications 0ere also consulted.
2.1 General Background
+irst o$ all) it is rele&ant to present a 3rie$ description o$ the <li=a3ethan society. In
Shakespeare/s <ngland the al!ost uni&ersal 3elie$ in the presence and po0er o$ the
BCnseen/ touched national li$e at e&ery point. -usto!s 0ere $or!ed 3y it. -onduct 0as
dictated 3y it. It 0as !ore po0er$ul than so&ereign or $eudal lord to e2act i!plicit
o3edience $ro! the !ass o$ the people. >or 0as superstitious credulity li!ited to those
0ho 0ere ignorant and illiterate. "ll classes 0ere 3eneath its spell $ro! the no3les o$
the -ourt to the &aga3onds 6-lark 17. The society o$ Shakespeare/s <ngland 0as highly
socially strati$ied. ?any people 0ere undereducated and !ost o$ the! could not read.
There$ore) it 0as !ore pro3a3le that their 3elie$s and &alues 0ill re!ain 0ithin the
$ra!e0ork o$ popular 3elie$s and related traditions o$ those ti!es. This period 0as
highly insecureA there$ore) people sought so!e security and assurance $or the $uture)
0hich they could $ind) $or e2a!ple) in astrology or &arious prophecies granting the! a
3etter $uture.
7
The period is also characteri=ed 3y the onset o$ the %e$or!ation) 0hen the old
traditions and 3elie$s ca!e into con$lict 0ith the ne0 ones and $or a certain period
coe2isted together. "lthough the %e$or!ation introduced signi$icant changes) it took a
&ery long ti!e $or the! to take e$$ect and to change the 3elie$s deeply rooted in the
people. "s Tho!as says) the protestant "nglican -hurch since !edie&al ti!es e2ercised
its po0er through supernatural !iracles) to $ight paganis! and) as Tho!as argues) the
clai! to supernatural po0er 0as an essential ele!ent in the "nglo1Sa2on -hurch. The
$ir! position o$ the church progressed then into ignorance and later on into scepticis!.
Gro0ing secularity together 0ith progressing industriali=ation and) as Tho!as says)
also the social changes increased the &olu!e o$ scepticis! in the respecti&e centuries
6Tho!as 26) 1737. >e&ertheless) !any <li=a3ethan 3elie$s and &alues date 3ack to
traditions $ro! !uch earlier ti!es) !ostly $ro! the pagan past) 0hen !any people
3elie&ed in !agic and !ystical properties o$ ani!als and her3s.
The <li=a3ethans 0ere also interested in astrology. The interpretation o$ stars
and positions o$ hea&enly 3odies and their in$luence upon !an 0as not only popular
a!ong the 0ider population) 3ut it 0as used as a political instru!ent o$ considera3le
i!portance 3y the ruling !onarchs. Being it o$ general or indi&idual usage) astrology
pro&ided predictions) reco!!endations and ad&ice. In the <li=a3ethan ti!es stars 0ere
said to in$luence the people. -o!ets held to $oretell the death o$ kings and !eteors and
shooting1starts 0ere thought to 3e the !essengers o$ e&il 6-lark 237. The i!portance o$
astrology to that ti!e/s society is illustrated also 3y its popularity a!ong the !onarchs
and other i!portant personalities o$ that ti!e. <li=a3eth I) *enry DII as 0ell as *enry
DIII had their personal astrologers. @ing ,a!es is kno0n to ha&e 3een &ery interested in
the topics o$ the supernatural and Eli&er -ro!0ell e!ployed an astrologer 5illia!
Filly to support and e2tend his popularity. "lso Gueen <li=a3eth hersel$ had a $riendly
relationship to0ards the Supernatural. She is kno0n $or her consultations 0ith ,ohn
ee) a $a!ous scholar o$ that ti!e) 0ho pu3licly presented his sessions 0ith angels and
!ade pu3lic the !essages he proclai!ed to ha&e recei&ed $ro! the!. "strology 0as
thought to predict &arious situations o$ political i!portance and deter!ined the !ost
con&enient dates $or i!portant e&ents. Stars and astrological apparitions 0ere taken as
e2planations o$ $a&our or dis$a&our granted 3y so!e higher po0er. "s in our ti!es) the
<li=a3ethan audience 0idely used the ser&ices o$ astrologers $or the co!pilation o$
horoscopes and interpretation o$ the position o$ stars and planets and the in$luence o$
#
thereo$. "strology could thus appeal as a !eans o$ e&ading responsi3ility) re!o&ing
guilt $ro! 3oth su$$erer and society at large 6Tho!as 33'7.
+ro! 1.#'s on0ards) !any scienti$ic or 8pseudo1scienti$ic9 pa!phlets and
0orks on &arious topics dealing 0ith the Supernatural 0ere pu3lished. "lthough not all
o$ the! 0ere decided in the ;uestion i$ the Supernatural e2ists or not) they ne&ertheless
dre0 attention to this $ield. The $ollo0ing 0orks are 3y conte!porary scholars 6Gi3son
and -lark7 regarded as in$luential $or that ti!e/s dra!atistsH In 1.#4) %eginald Scot
pu3lished The Disco$erie of %itchcraft) 0here he discussed the e2istence o$ 0itchesA in
1.#7) the clergy!an George Gi$$ord pu3lished A Discourse Concerning the ubtle
&ractices of De$ils by %itches and orcerersA in 1.93) A Dialogue Concerning %itches
and %itchcrafts 0as pu3lished 3y George Gi$$ordA and) in 1.97) ,a!es DI o$ Scotland
6later ,a!es I o$ <ngland7 pu3lished his treatise on 0itchcra$t called Demonology. In
16'.) Sir Bacon 0rote a treatise on spirits and ghosts called Ad$ancement of 'earning
0here he deals 0ith the supernatural) spirits and ghosts and the approach one should
adopt to0ards the! and ho0 these concepts should 3e treated.
In the $ollo0ing section) I 0ill 3rie$ly discuss the !ost in$luential traditions
regarding the Supernatural a!ong the <li=a3ethan audience and the i!portance
attri3uted to &arious $or!s o$ the Supernatural and to rele&ant apparitions.
2.2 Supernatural Traditions
?edie&al traditions $ollo0ed $ro! ancient traditions such that the souls trapped in
:urgatory could return to the !ortals in the $or! o$ ghosts) especially i$ they did not
redee! their sins) or to gi&e an e2hi3it o$ li$e a$ter death to pro&ide help or to deli&er
certain !essages. "dditionally) the spirits and souls could return to $inish and conclude
their terrestrial doings. *o0e&er) this concept 0as changed 0ith the onset o$ the
%e$or!ation. The e2istence o$ :urgatory 0as denied and the only possi3ilities accepted
0ere *ea&en or *ell. "lthough the <li=a3ethans did not re(ect the apparitions o$ ghosts)
they did not regard the! as souls o$ the dead and 0ere sceptical as regards the
percepti3ility o$ these to the !ortals. "s $or the apparitions 0hich 0ere still
encountered) :rotestants agreed that they 0ere not to 3e !istaken $or the souls o$ the
departed) 3ut 0ere to 3e strictly e2a!ined) and resolute scepticis! 0as the only de$ence
against their 3landish!ents 6Tho!as .#97. In the ti!es o$ Shakespeare) there 0ere
9
!any theoretical approaches to0ards ghosts and spirits and their nature or a3ilities.
So!e scholars still argued $or the -atholic perception o$ the :urgatory) $ro! 0here the
souls could return to the li&ing) others di&ided the souls into those 3lessed and sa&ed
and those da!ned and thus doo!ed) 0ith the third category $loating so!e0here in
3et0een) 0hich could) again) !ake its presence &isi3le to the li&ing. *o0e&er) a!ong
the ordinary <li=a3ethan audience) the possi3ility o$ such ghostly apparitions 0as
0idely ackno0ledged and such !ani$estations o$ ghosts 0ere !ostly e2pected to 3e o$
e&il character.
Ether kinds o$ spiritual apparitions 0ere $airies and 0itches. +airies) 3ad as 0ell
as good) and o$ any appearance) 0ere also an indi&isi3le part o$ the traditional 3elie$s o$
the <li=a3ethans. They 0ere pictured as creatures li&ing in 0oods) organising !idnight
dances on !eado0s and inter$ering 0ith the li&es o$ hu!ans. 5itches and 0itchcra$t
are &ery co!!on topics in general and the interest in the! is not li!ited only to the
16th and 17th centuries. The <li=a3ethan period is re!arka3le $or the onset o$ 0itch
trials that had appeared already in the 1.#'s. 5itches 0ere traditionally attri3uted
negati&e characteristics and 0ere 3la!ed $or any 3ad or disastrous e&ent that happened.
*o0e&er) also persons 6!ostly 0o!en7 engaged in curing $atal diseases 0ere accused
o$ 3eing 0itches. "s the $ear o$ 0itches and 0itchcra$t increased in <urope) the
-atholic -hurch included in its de$inition o$ 0itchcra$t anyone 0ith kno0ledge o$ her3s
as Bthose 0ho used her3s $or cures did so only through a pact 0ith the e&il) either
e2plicit or i!plicit/ and during the reign o$ Gueen <li=a3eth the 5itchcra$t "ct) an act
Bagaynst Con!uracions Inchauntmentes and %itchecraftes/) 0as passed in 1.62
1
.
>aturally) the 3elie$ in 0itches 0as acco!panied 3y the popular 3elie$ in the de&il and
his po0ers) including the possi3ilities o$ possessions 3y de&il po0ers.
"nother &ery i!portant part o$ the e&eryday 3elie$s o$ the <li=a3ethans and a
co!!on topic o$ !any literary 0orks 0ere drea!sH their !eaning) $unction and
interpretation. The supernatural signi$icance attri3uted to particularly &i&id drea!s and
their $unction o$ con&eying certain !essages as 0ell as prophecies and $oretelling the
$uture 0as deeply rooted already in !edie&al ti!es and under the -hurch prior to the
%e$or!ation. "s Tho!as statesH 8Theologians taught that !ost o$ the! Idrea!sJ had
purely physical causes and 0ere not to 3e heeded. But they ad!itted that so!e !ight 3e
supernatural in inspiration) though as likely to 3e dia3olical as di&ine9 6Tho!as 12#7.
1
"lchin) F.@. <li=a3ethan <ra. 2. +e3ruary 2''9.
KhttpH44000.eli=a3ethan1era.org.uk4eli=a3ethan10itchcra$t1and10itches.ht!L
1'
"s in our ti!es) drea!s 0ere !eans o$ e2plaining the $uture or 0ere supposed to
pro&ide grounds $or decisions and 0ere also regarded as !eans o$ co!!unication
3et0een the real 0orld o$ !en and the unreal 0ord o$ ghosts and spirits.
To conclude this section) $ro! the a3o&e !entioned discussion it 3eco!es
o3&ious that the popular 3elie$s o$ the <li=a3ethans 0ere not signi$icantly di$$erent $ro!
the preceding or su3se;uent periods. In each ti!e period) people 3elie&e that earthly
e&ents can 3e in$luenced 3y higher po0ers and that there is so!ething 3eyond the
rational 0orld. *o0e&er) the i!portance o$ such 3elie$s changes and) in respect to
dra!a) in e&ery period the audience is sensiti&e to0ards di$$erent scenes and di$$erent
concepts and reacts in a di$$erent 0ay. Thus) as !any scholars conclude) the audience o$
Shakespeare and o$ his conte!poraries pro3a3ly 0anted to see $or!s o$ the
Supernatural on the stage and attri3uted the! si!ilar $unctions and characteristics as in
their e&eryday li$e.
11
3. The Supernatural in Draa
This chapter seeks to pro&ide a 3rie$ insight into the use o$ the Supernatural in dra!atic
0orks in the ti!e o$ Shakespeare and his conte!poraries. This chapter 0ill 3rie$ly
discuss the literary con&entions that applied to treat!ent o$ Supernatural ele!ents in
<li=a3ethan dra!a) the origins o$ these con&entions as 0ell as the !ost i!portant
sources o$ in$luence and inspiration. In addition to Shakespeare) I 0ill $urther include
other authors o$ his period 0ho also incorporated &arious $or!s o$ the Supernatural in
their 0orks. The o3(ecti&e o$ this chapter is to pro&ide a short o&er&ie0 o$ the !odels
that Shakespeare and his conte!poraries used in relation to the Supernatural $eatures) so
that the reader !ay understand the e2tent o$ originality or unoriginality regarding the
e!ploy!ent and usage o$ supernatural $eatures in dra!a. There$ore) the o3(ecti&e is to
stress that the use o$ the Supernatural in dra!a 0as not 8in&ented9 in the 16th and 17th
centuries) 3ut it 0as the result o$ a long tradition) although the indi&idual dra!as 0ere
in$luenced also 3y conte!porary treatises and pa!phlets on the rele&ant topics) so!e o$
0hich 0ere !entioned in the preceding chapter.
>e&ertheless) it is still necessary to keep on !ind that each author) although
in$luenced 3y his predecessors or conte!poraries) treats his piece o$ dra!a in a highly
indi&idual $ashion. "lthough so!e scholars and authors o$ rele&ant pu3lications regard
Shakespeare/s use o$ the Supernatural and !ost nota3ly the e2tent o$ such
i!ple!entation as outstanding and ha&ing the attri3utes o$ !astery) it is still i!portant
to consider the in$luences that shaped ShakespeareMs !ethods o$ usage o$ such $eatures.
I ai! to outline the 3asic lines o$ inspirations $or <li=a3ethan dra!a regarding the
Supernatural and to de!onstrate that 0ith a close reading it is possi3le to detect not
only these inspirations 3ut also the repetiti&eness o$ indi&idual core scenes e!ployed 3y
Shakespeare as 0ell as his conte!poraries.
The !ost in$luential inspiration $or <li=a3ethan dra!a regarding the use o$
Supernatural $eature is attri3uted to Seneca and his re&enge tragedies and to Greek
dra!a in general. Seneca 0as especially in$luential in ter!s o$ the particular style and
!anner o$ e!ploy!ent o$ such $eatures) 3ut as $or content inspiration it is the 0ork
'i$es of the Noble (recians and Romans 3y :lutarch translated 3y Tho!as >orth in
12
1.79
2
) 0hich contains 3iographies o$ $a!ous %o!an and Greek e!perors that 0ere
ela3orated in !any <li=a3ethan plays. "nother !ain source o$ inspiration $or
<li=a3ethan dra!atists is %aphael *olinshed and his Chronicles of )ngland* cotland
and Ireland) 0hich gi&es !any historical accounts.
The i!portance o$ Seneca can 3y illustrated 3y BoyerMs co!!ent. 8To Seneca is
usually attri3uted the introduction o$ the ghost and the chorus) the di&ision o$ the play
into $i&e acts) as 0ell as the introduction o$ &arious the!es) such as re&enge9 and the
e2tent and rele&ance o$ his in$luence on the <li=a3ethan authors as $ollo0sH 8I...J e&en
in his appeal to !agic and the supernatural N Seneca o$$ered the!es 3oth $a!iliar and
pleasing to the audience o$ the <li=a3ethan theatre9 6Boyer 467. The !ost nota3le
connection 3et0een Seneca and the dra!atists o$ the <li=a3ethan era 6although not all
o$ the!7 is the re&enge tragedy genre. This type o$ tragedy is introduced 0ith a
character o$ ghost o$ a person killed 3y so!e character6s7 o$ the play) de!anding
re&enge and (ustice. The ghosts 0ere introduced 3y !eans o$ prologue and they had an
introductory dialogue 0ith other characters) !ost o$ten 0ith a character o$ %e&enge)
and discussed the (ustice and right$ulness o$ such an act. "s Spens says) the prologue
0as !eant as a !oral introduction 6Spens 247 o$ the topic o$ the play and sought to
dra0 attention to the issue o$ re&enge and (ustice. This $eature o$ the prologue1ghost as
0ell as the genre o$ the re&enge tragedy 0as taken o&er 3y &arious <li=a3ethan
dra!atists) !ost nota3ly 3y Tho!as @yd and his panish Tragedy) 0hich is so!eti!es
regarded as the $irst <li=a3ethan re&enge tragedy. Thus) the panish Tragedy is a &ery
good illustration o$ Seneca/s in$luence on <li=a3ethan dra!a and according to Boyer)
the general at!osphere o$ &iolence and death in his play) and the su!!ary o$ all the
horrors 3y the Ghost at the end o$ the action) are Senecan 6Boyer) 437. "nother e2a!ple
o$ a dra!atist 0ho i!ple!ented the Senecan !odel o$ re&enge tragedies is ?iddleton
and his Re$enger+s Tragedy. "dditionally) Spens notes that also Shakespeare/s 8Titus9)
8*a!let9) 8,ulius -aesar9) 8?ac3eth9) 8-oriolanus9 and 8Ti!on9 are to 3e regarded as
a!ong the! 6Spens 467. +ro! the a3o&e !entioned e2a!ples it is o3&ious that the
inspiration taken $ro! Seneca can 3e detected also in relation to !oti$s and $ocus o$ the
play) not only directly in relation to the structure. In !any cases the <li=a3ethan
dra!atists took o&er the Senecan con&entions regarding the ghost and adapted the! to
their particular plays and cases o$ usageH 85hat Shakespeare and his conte!poraries did
2
Thayer.5.:. :lutarch) The :arallel Fi&es. 27
th
?arch 2''9
httpH44penelope.uchicago.edu4Thayer4<4%o!an4Te2ts4:lutarch4Fi&es4Introduction
13
to the con&ention o$ the Senecan ghost 0as to !ake it uncon&entional. The old
prototype o$ ghost 0as replaced 3y a hu!ani=ed !odel 0ith a !ythology o$ its o0n 1
not a ghost that ca!e $ro! the ancient under0orld o$ Tartarus) 3ut $ro! a -hristian
conte2t.9
3
The in$luence o$ Greek tragedies can 3e detected also in ter!s o$ indi&idual
scenes. ?any scenes including so!e $or!s o$ the Supernatural 6!ostly ghost1scenes7
can 3e $ound in !any di$$erent plays) 0ith &arious ad(ust!ents and alternations. So!e
&ery 0ell kno0n supernatural scenes o$ <li=a3ethan dra!a ha&e their origins in earlier
6Greek7 dra!a or in one o$ the a3o&e !entioned sources and 0ere adopted 3y &arious
di$$erent authors) 0ho !ade use o$ 0ell1outlined scenes 3ut put the! into a !ore or less
speci$ic conte2t. There$ore) although the <li=a3ethan authors shared si!ilar !odels o$
scenes in&ol&ing certain $or!s o$ the Supernatural) they ne&ertheless ga&e their 0orks a
sense o$ originality through such details as a particular conte2t or 3ackground $or such
scenes. +or e2a!ple) as ,anet Spens co!!ents) it is possi3le to detect the sa!e ghost
scenes in Shakespeare/s Hamlet and in ?arston/s Antonio+s Re$enge 6the appearance o$
the ghost o$ "ndrugio corresponds to the scene in the Gueen/s 3edcha!3er 0ith the
ghost o$ old king7.
"lthough) in case o$ such and si!ilar inspirations) it is di$$icult to conclude
0hich author is the author o$ the 8original9 0ork and 0ho i!itated 0ho) such
connections point to the tendency to share 0ell outlined scenes and parts o$ plays that
pro&ed &alua3le and success$ul.
?any authors ha&e noted other si!ilarities 3et0een the 0orks o$ <li=a3ethan
dra!atists and !uch older plays. "!ong others) Gi3son argues that in ShakespeareMs
treat!ent o$ the Supernatural it is possi3le to detect the $ollo0ing inspirations. In
Macbeth Shakespeare took o&er certain supernatural aspects $ro! one o$ his sources $or
this play) *olinshed/s Chronicles, +ro! this &ery sa!e 0ork Shakespeare took the
characters o$ the 0eird sisters and as Gi3son goes on) the procession o$ ghosts in
Richard III is also deri&ed $ro! *olinshed/s chronicles. The issue o$ inspiration $ro!
pree2isting 0orks also applies to the tragedy Hamlet discussed pre&iously. -u!3erland
-lark says that Shakespeare only re0orked the ghost in Hamlet $ound in an older play)
0hose authorship is not clear 6e.g. -lark attri3utes the authorship to @yd7) as 0ell as
gaining inspiration $ro! FodgeMs 5it/s Miserie 61.967. "s another i!portant source o$
&arious $or!s o$ the Supernatural Shakespeare used the a3o&e !entioned 0ork 3y
:lutarch. "ccording to -lark) $ro! :lutarchMs account o$ li&es o$ $a!ous persons $ro!
3
:ierson) <ric. 1'th ?arch 2''9. KhttpH44elsinore.ucsc.edu4Ghost4ghost.ht!lL
14
%o!an history Shakespeare took the ghost appearing in Julius Caesar* and in Antony
and Cleopatra he consulted :lutarch $or a scene preceding the $inal 3attle a!ong the
triu!&irs) presenting an unnatural !usic $ro! 3eneath. It is 0ell kno0n that not only
Shakespeare) 3ut also his conte!poraries incorporated &arious $or!s o$ the
Supernatural into their plays and also that these dra!atists 0ere in$luenced 3y &arious
!odel 0orks. ?any scholars ha&e discussed the $ollo0ing dra!atists and their 0orks
0hich !ade signi$icant use o$ the Supernatural in their plays. In his section on use o$
the Supernatural 3y ShakespeareMs conte!poraries) Gi3son !entions ?arlo0Ms Doctor
"austus) ekkerMs %itch of )dmonton* ?iddletonMs %itch and GreenMs "riar -acon and
"riar -ungay, "s $ar as Doctor "austus is concerned* ?arlo0eMs !ain source 0as The
Damnable 'ife and Deser$ed Death of Dr, John "austus) along 0ith conte!porary
0ritings on !agic and religion 6including te2ts 3y "grippa) -al&in) and :erkins7 that
esta3lish the playMs intellectual 3ackground.
4
*o0e&er) the topic o$ a philosopher that
concluded a contract 0ith the e&il 0as already popular in ti!es 3e$ore Shakespeare
and 0as ela3orated in !any &arious 0orks. The sa!e applies also to ekkerMs and
?iddletonMs plays) 0hich treated ane0 &ery popular and $re;uently ela3orated topics)
though !aking their o0n contri3utions.
The a3o&e !entioned 3rie$ o&er&ie0 o$ inspirations and !odels used 3y
<li=a3ethan dra!atists de!onstrates that in relation to the Supernatural and its usage)
the dra!a o$ that era cannot 3e percei&ed as inno&ati&e and original. <li=a3ethan
authors &ery o$ten used concepts included already in 0orks 3y other dra!atists) na!ely
3y representati&es o$ Greek dra!a. *o0e&er) it is i!portant to stress that these 0ere not
only !ere adoptions 3ut in&ol&ed a certain degree o$ originality and the particular
authorMs o0n indi&idual re$lection) and that these concepts 0ere ad(usted to the
particular conte2ts and audience. Thus) it can 3e su!!arised that the <li=a3ethan period
redisco&ered the concepts and con&entions used already in Greek tragedies and updated
the!) each author doing so to a di$$erent e2tent. In this conte2t) the !ost i!portant
e2a!ple is the con&ention o$ a ghost appearing in the introduction to a re&enge play)
0hich suggests that the ghost only appears in the prologue to the play) and is not
directly in&ol&ed in the action o$ the plot itsel$.
.
"lthough this concept 0as not
co!pletely altered 3y all dra!atists treating the !oti$ o$ re&enge) in !any cases 6!ostly
ShakespeareMs plays7 it is possi3le to detect a shi$t. The !oral di!ension presented 3y
4
?arlo0e) -hristopher. octor +austus. <d. Syl&an Barnet. Signet -lassic) 2''1. "&aila3le at Google
BooksH KhttpH443ooks.google.c=L
.
:ierson) <ric. 1'th ?arch 2''9. KhttpH44elsinore.ucsc.edu4Ghost4ghost.ht!lL
1.
the ghost in the prologue o$ the re&enge tragedies 3eca!e part o$ the te2t itsel$.
"lthough this !oral di!ension together 0ith aspects o$ (ustice and re$erence to
conscience o$ the &illains is still !ani$ested through the appearance o$ a ghost) it e2erts
a direct in$luence upon the characters o$ the play. This is) $or e2a!ple) the case o$
Shakespeare/s Hamlet* 0here the !oral di!ension o$ this play is shi$ted into the te2t
and is i!plied 3y the conte2t and the particular situations.
In conclusion) it is i!portant to stress that despite the &arious le&els o$ adoption
o$ pre1e2isting concepts and con&entions 3y <li=a3ethan dra!atists and their di$$erent
e2tent and !anner o$ alternation) the <li=a3ethan dra!a 0as) in relation to the
Supernatural) highly in$luenced 3y the respecti&e traditions. "dditionally) despite these
con&entions and the repetiti&eness o$ si!ilar scenes in !ore 0orks than (ust 3y one
author) 0hat e&entually !akes the di$$erence is the o&erall conte2t o$ the play and the
role and position 0hich the particular supernatural apparition holds in the play. +or the
purposes o$ this thesis it is) there$ore) rele&ant to discuss ShakespeareMs 0ay o$
i!ple!enting the Supernatural and not his inspirations and reasons $or doing so.
16
!. Shakespeare and the Supernatural
The topic o$ Shakespeare/s use o$ the Supernatural has 3een ela3orated 3y !any authors
$ro! a nu!3er o$ di$$erent perspecti&es. Si!ilarly to the o&erall o3(ecti&e o$ this thesis)
this chapter does not ai! at presenting another co!prehensi&e treatise on the
relationship o$ Shakespeare and the Supernatural) 3ut rather at pro&iding an introduction
and general conte2t $or the analyses 0hich 0ill 3e presented in the $ollo0ing
su3chapter. ShakespeareMs use o$ the Supernatural is regarded 3y !any authors as
ha&ing an additional di!ension o$ dra!atic $unction. The preceding chapter discussed
the con&entions and popular conceptions that 0ere used 3y Shakespeare and 0ell as his
conte!poraries and their origin. *o0e&er) despite this 0idely accepted inspiration)
Shakespeare does) upon co!parison 0ith his conte!poraries) stand out as the true
!aster in this $ield. This assu!ption is held also 3y -u!3erland -lark) 0ho holds that
Odra!atists like Greene) ekker) ?iddleton and e&en ?arlo0e) all o$ 0ho! handled the
Supernatural) 0ere una3le to in&ent their 3eings 0ith those ;ualities 0hich distinguish
Shakespeare/s creations9. 6-lark 427
In his 0orks) Shakespeare uses &arious $or!s o$ the Supernatural. *is dra!as
present us 0ith ghosts) $airies) ny!phs) spirits and 0itches. So!e o$ the! are o$ a high
i!portance and in$luence to his plays) 0hile so!e o$ the! are only !arginal. The
appearance or re$erences to 0hich are so!eti!es !ore in$luential in the o&erall conte2t
o$ the play) so!eti!es these are only !ere re$erences. ?ostly) the apparitions are
shocking and striking) ai!ed at attracting the attention o$ the audience and shi$ting the
dra!a $or0ard and strea!lining its course) either 3y direct or indirect interactions) or
through co!!entary. *o0e&er) the 8supernatural aspect9 does not ha&e to concern only
the &isi3le and clearly !ani$ested presence and appearances o$ supernatural 3eings. The
dra!a can also in&ol&e so!ething unpredicta3le) so!e additional aspect to the dra!a
that cannot 3e grasped rationally. Gi3son suggests that Shakespeare 0as &ery !uch
a0are o$ the i!portance o$ superstitions to the audience o$ that era) so he care$ully
introduced a general 3ackground o$ superstitions into !ost o$ his plays 6Gi3son 1347.
*o0e&er) the !ost re!arka3le dra!as in respect to the Supernatural are considered the
$ollo0ing dra!asH Midsummer Night+s Dream and the Tempest $or their o&erall
at!osphere and the portrayal o$ the 0orld o$ $airies) and Hamlet and Macbeth $or strong
17
supernatural ele!ents. *o0e&er) !any other Shakespeare plays present re$erences to
prophecies) drea!s) o!ens) portents and astrological as 0ell as astrono!ical e&ents and
signs. espite the $re;uency o$ the use o$ the &arious $or!s o$ the Supernatural)
Shakespeare 0ields the! 0ith particular o3(ecti&es and considerations. The !ost
i!portant $act is that he does not let his audience 3eco!e accusto!ed to such ele!ents
in his plays) 3ut rather thought$ully paces the in$luence and the i!pact o$ these $eatures
on his audience. Thus) the audience does not 3eco!e o&er0hel!ed 3y the constant
presence and in$luence o$ the Supernatural) 3ut rather reacts to e&ery supernatural
apparition) i$ it does not appear in e&ery scene. "s Gi3son suggests) this (udicious use o$
the Supernatural has the e$$ect o$ gi&ing added !eaning to the spirits 0hen they appear
6Gi3son 1137. *o0e&er) the use o$ the Supernatural as 0ell as e2tent o$ the i!pact on
the audience depends also on the conte2t o$ the particular usage and on the aspects or
!oti$s that are stressed in the particular play and on the o&erall character o$ the dra!a.
There$ore) the use o$ a ghost in one play !ay 3ring a3out ;uite di$$erent i!plications
than use o$ the sa!e $eature in another play. ue to this aspect) the $ollo0ing analyses
0ill a3o&e all consider the o&erall character o$ the plays presented and the position and
the i!portance attri3uted to the particular supernatural apparitions.
!.1. "nalyses
"s stated in the preceding section) this su3chapter 0ill present analyses and
co!parisons o$ three pairs o$ plays) 0ith the ai! to illustrate the use o$ the Supernatural
3y Shakespeare. 5hereas the respecti&e plays are co!para3le in ter!s o$ their plots)
actions or characters) they di$$er in ter!s o$ their e!phasis and orientation.
The pairs presented 0ill 3eH Richard III 3y 5illia! Shakespeare co!pared to
the anony!ous play The True Tragedy of Richard IIIA Julius Caesar 3y Shakespeare
co!pared to e!anus* His "all 3y Ben ,onsonA and Shakespeare/s Anthony and
Cleopatra co!pared to The Tragedy of Cleopatra 3y Sa!uel aniel. :rior to the
respecti&e analyses) it is i!portant to state that the non1Shakespearean plays are not to
3e regarded as e2act !odels $or Shakespearean dra!as. "lthough the True Tragedy of
Richard III and The Tragedy of Cleopatra are 3y so!e scholars regarded as 3eing
a!ong the sources $or the respecti&e Shakespearean counterparts) the $ocus o$ the
1#
$ollo0ing analyses is not a discussion o$ any !utual relationship nor the rele&ance o$
the respecti&e plays in ter!s o$ content) nor the e2tent to 0hich Shakespeare dre0 his
inspiration $ro! these plays and any particular con$or!ing or di$$erent passages) 3ut
rather on the o&erall di$$erent at!osphere o$ the plays) the presentation o$ characters
and their de&elop!ent and the course o$ the plays as the result o$ inclusion or non1
inclusion o$ supernatural $eatures and the style o$ their application in the respecti&e
plays. There$ore) these analyses 0ill include only passages in&ol&ing certain kinds o$
supernatural $eatures 0hich are rele&ant to the general nature o$ the play) and 0ill not
take into consideration the &ariations in the !ain plot) &arious characters included or the
di$$erence in nu!3er o$ scenes or acts o$ the play) or their structure.
En the contrary) the core o$ these analyses 0ill lie in the $ocus and direction 0hich their
respecti&e authors attri3uted to the!.
19
!.1.1 The True Tragedy of Richard III #s. Richard III
The $irst pair o$ plays to 3e co!pared shares a great nu!3er o$ si!ilarities) as 3oth the
plays include the historical $igure o$ %ichard III o$ <ngland as their !ain character and
share !ost o$ the plot e&ents. *o0e&er) there are signi$icant di$$erences in respect to the
$ocus o$ the dra!as and the line the indi&idual plays $ollo0.
The anony!ous play The True Tragedy of Richard III 0as pu3lished
anony!ously in 1.94 3y Tho!as -reede) 3ut the e2act date o$ pu3lication as 0ell as
the authorship is not kno0n. >e&ertheless) the play 0as $irst per$or!ed in the period
$ro! 1.## to 1.94
6
. "s !entioned a3o&e) the anony!ous play is 3y so!e scholars
regarded as one o$ the sources o$ Shakespeare/s playA ho0e&er) it is argued that it rather
$ollo0s the sa!e historical sources 6chronicles o$ *all and *olinshed7 and is also 3ased
on passages $ro! the Mirror for Magistrates.
Shakespeare/s Richard III 0as $irst entered in the Stationer/s %egister on
Ecto3er 2' 1.97) 3ut the e2act date o$ co!position is not precisely kno0n.
>e&ertheless) this te2t is denoted as 8Guarto &ersion) G19 and in 1623 0as included in
the +irst +olio o$ Shakespeare/s plays) 8+19) 0ith signi$icant di$$erences) the !ost
i!portant o$ 0hich 3eing that the +olio te2t is longer and includes e2tra lines that are
not included in the G1. The pri!ary sources $or this historical play 0ere *all/s and
*olinshed/s chronicles) and) si!ilar to the anony!ous play) the te2t Mirror for
Magistrates and) as !entioned in the introduction) so!e scholars also suggest the True
Tragedy as one o$ Shakespeare/s inspirations
7
.
"s $ar as the plot is concerned) 3oth plays share se&eral si!ilar $eatures. Both
dra!as descri3e the death o$ the king <d0ard ID and the intrigues o$ %ichard) resulting
in i!prison!ent o$ t0o young princes) !urder o$ se&eral other characters) 3eing it his
allies or ene!ies) and %ichard 3eco!ing the king) %ichard III. Both plays take place
0ith the historical 3ackground o$ the 5ar o$ the %oses 614.3 N 14#77. The anony!ous
play and Shakespeare/s play 3oth introduce the sa!e characters 6apart $ro! @ing
<d0ard ID and %ichard III) also Ford *astings) Ford Grey) Ford Buckingha!)
-larence) <li=a3eth) a!ong others7. *o0e&er) there are also &arious di$$erences and
&ariations o$ structure and co!position o$ the plays) as Shakespeare/s play in&ol&es
6
The 3i3liographical data 0as taken $ro! the pre$ace toH True Tragedy o$ %ichard III. 1.94.
KhttpH44000.eli=a3ethanauthors.co!4truetragedy'1.ht!L
7
The 3i3liographical data 0as taken $ro! the pre$ace toH Shakespeare) 5illia!. @ing %ichard III. The
"rden Shakespeare) ed. "ntony *a!!ond. FondonH %outledge) 1994.
2'
se&eral additional scenes and passages. Cnlike the True Tragedy* Richard III does not
3egin 0ith the natural death o$ <d0ard ID) 3ut rather opens 0ith a long !onologue 3y
%ichard) disclosing his e&il character and his planned intrigues 0hich later on result in
the 3attle 0ith his ri&al %ich!ond. En the contrary) the anony!ous play is concluded
0ith a long dialogue 3et0een the character o$ Shore/s 0i$e and se&eral other characters)
0hich is closed 0ith a speech only suggesting so!e 8sha!e$ul end9 0hich Shore/s 0i$e
8!ay li&e yet to see9) 3ut no $inal conclusion is !entioned. "nother $ar !ore i!portant
di!ension o$ co!parison is that o$ the conception o$ the plays. The core concept o$
3oth the plays is that o$ %ichard/s treacherous treat!ent o$ his ene!ies and o$ his
ser&ants and $or!er allies and his interactions 0ith other characters. *o0e&er) there is a
signi$icant di$$erence in the $ocus o$ the plays. The True Tragedy is pri!arily $ocused
on the course o$ the e&ents) on actions. It includes descriptions o$ %ichard/s co!plots
and !anipulations 0ith other characters) and also the !easures and steps he took in
order to gain po0er. It presents the story rather $ro! the $actual point o$ &ie0. The play
also e2plains the political 3ackground 3ehind all the e&ents) thus presenting the reader
0ith all the rele&ant data to understand the story) its de&elop!ent and its circu!stances.
This !ay in parts 3e deter!ined 3y the length o$ the play) 0hich is) in co!parison to
Shakespeare/s play) considera3ly shorter. "dditionally) the plot &ery rarely re&eals the
$eelings and thoughts o$ the characters through 0hich they 0ould illustrate or re$lect
their deeds. There is a &ery 0eak !oral di!ension) as the reader does not ha&e any
insight into the character/s !ind or heart. In $act) it is a &ery 0ell co!posed story1
oriented account o$ chronological e&ents and actions that ca!e a3out a$ter the death o$
the old king. "lthough there is &ery little re&ealed a3out the $eelings) conscience or
thoughts o$ indi&idual characters) the te2t has considera3le &alue on its o0n) e&en
0ithout this additional di!ension.
5hen re$lecting on Richard III $ro! the sa!e perspecti&e) the outco!e is rather
di$$erent. The &alues Shakespeare $ocused on are ;uite the contrary. Si!ilar to the
anony!ous play) Shakespeare gi&es an account o$ the e&ents concerning %ichard and
his treacherous actions) relating his ene!ies as 0ell as acco!plices and descri3es
%ichard/s sei=e o$ po0er. *o0e&er) an i!portant di$$erence is that Shakespeare
co!ple!ented this historical account 0ith ele!ents o$ !oral di!ension in respect to his
characters. "s co!!on thread throughout) it is possi3le to detect the issues o$
conscience) guilt) (ustice and punish!ent throughout his play. This !oral di!ension
greatly enhances the plot and signi$icantly shi$ts the de&elop!ent and portrayal o$ the
21
characters. E0ing to the nu!erous dialogues and !onologues re&ealing the $eelings)
thoughts and conte!plations o$ the !ain characters) the reader4audience gains an
insight into their conscience and the characters are attri3uted an additional di!ension.
+ollo0ing the a3o&e included co!parison) it is apparent that each o$ the plays
has a di$$erent $ocus. The anony!ous play presents its e&ents $ro! a historical and
rather narrati&e perspecti&e) and) on the contrary) Shakespeare is !ore $ocused on the
!oral di!ension o$ his characters and appellation on their conscience. There$ore) these
distinctions need to 3e considered 0hen discussing and re$lecting on the role o$ the
Supernatural in 3oth plays.
Both plays in&ol&e re$erences to the Supernatural) 3ut such allusions &ary in
ter!s o$ $re;uency and a3o&e all the conte2t in 0hich they are applied as 0ell as in
re$erences to other ele!ents o$ the plays. Shakespeare as 0ell as the author o$ the
anony!ous play incorporated into their respecti&e plays re!arks on the !ighty po0er
o$ God and stars and the in$luence o$ these hea&enly 3odies on the li&es o$ hu!ans.
Both te2ts also include speeches on 0itches) their e&il stratage!s and their curses.
*o0e&er) such re$erences can 3e rather taken as general hints re$lecting popular
tendencies in society as 0ell as literature and in $act do not ha&e a signi$icant dra!atic
role or &alue $or the play 6e2cept $or Shakespeare/s character o$ Gueen ?argaret) 0hich
0ill 3e discussed 3elo07. "dditionally) such re$erences !ay re$lect personal 3elie$s o$
the authors and thus cannot 3e discussed 0ithout 3ias.
The !ost signi$icant use o$ the Supernatural are 0itches) ghosts and an ele!ent
o$ drea! appearing in 3oth te2ts) ho0e&er in di$$erent conte2ts and con&eying di$$erent
!eanings. The $ollo0ing part o$ the te2t 0ill 3e $ocused on these three $or!s o$ the
Supernatural and on their respecti&e conte2ts) positions in the te2ts and the possi3le
$unction they per$or! in relation to the course o$ the plays as 0ell as the characters.
The anony!ous True Tragedy of Richard III includes) although to a li!ited
degree) the !oti$ o$ 0itchcra$t and the dark po0ers o$ 0itches that can 3e cast upon
!ortals. *o0e&er) this re$erence lacks a clear and !ani$ested connection to the
characters or plot o$ the play. The particular speech in&ol&ing the ele!ent o$ a 0itch is
introduced in the te2t indi&idually) in the conte2t stands on its o0n and does not $or!
any unity) or connection) to other $ollo0ing or su3se;uent speeches. There$ore) o0ing
to this lack o$ pre&ious re$erences to 0hich this speech could 3e linked) the e$$ect o$
inclusion o$ this supernatural ele!ent in the True Tragedy is di$$erent than in the case o$
si!ilar re$erences in Shakespeare/s play. This di$$erence in con&eyed !eaning can 3e
22
de!onstrated 0ith a si!ilar speech that is included in 3oth plays. %egardless o$ the
;uestion o$ source or o$ !utual inspiration) the $ollo0ing speeches 3y %ichard can 3e
co!paredH
%ichard/s line in the True TragedyH
%ich. Thou and that accursed sorceress the !other Gueen hath 3e0itched !e)
0ith assistance o$ that $a!ous stru!pet o$ !y 3rother/s) Shore/s 0i$e.
?y 0ithered ar! is a su$$icient testi!ony.
6True Tragedy of Richard III 7
co!pared to a si!ilar speech in Shakespeare/s tragedyH
%ich I...J See ho0 I a! 3e0itch/dP Behold !ine ar!
Is like a 3lasted sapling 0ither/d upP
"nd this is <d0ard/s 0i$e) the !onstrous 0itch)
consorted 0ith that harlot) stru!pet Shore)
that 3y their 0itchcra$t thus ha&e !arked !e.
6Richard III) "ct III) Scene ID) 6#1727
"s said in the introduction to this analysis) so!e scholars hold that the anony!ous True
Tragedy is one o$ the sources o$ Shakespeare/s tragedy) and another supporting $act is
that 3oth plays dre0 on the sa!e additional sources. "s such) 3oth e2tracts in&ol&e
re$erences to the sa!e characters N the old Gueen and !istress Shore. *o0e&er) 0hen
seen in the conte2t o$ the o&erall plot o$ the respecti&e plays) these re$erences con&ey
di$$erent !eanings. ue to the already !entioned lack o$ $urther re$erences to the old
Gueen) 0hich is attri3uted the po0ers o$ 0itches) in the anony!ous play this particular
speech does not ha&e any greater i!pact on the plot. 5ithout the supporti&e conte2t) the
reader4audience is not a3le to connect this speech 0ith a particular action) e&ent or
character) nor to dra0 any conclusions $ro! it. 5e kno0 that the character o$ %ichard is
3e0itched) 3ut 0e do not kno0 any $urther details and can only guess that it is $or his
&illainous actions.
En the contrary to the True Tragedy of Richard III) Shakespeare co!ple!ented
this particular speech 0ith se&eral others si!ilar re$erences and his character o$ the old
23
Gueen is $urther and !ore deeply ela3orated. Shakespeare/s character o$ ?argaret is
portrayed as a 0itch casting curses) and is re$erred to throughout the 0hole play) !ostly
in connection to the !ain &illains o$ the play and their actions. ?argaret/s speeches
illustrate co!!on 3elie$s regarding 0itches in <li=a3ethan ti!esH their practices 3eing
carried in the dark o$ night) 8+or3ear to sleep the nights) and $ast the days9 6ID) i&7)
their 8!ad1like9 appearance) and their a3ility to lay curses) !ake prophecies and $oretell
the $uture. The old Gueen is portrayed as an old) 0retched 0o!an) 0ho as a $or!er
;ueen greatly su$$ered due to the !is$ortunes %ichard caused her royal house and
conse;uently cast a curse on hi! as 0ell as his allies) causing thus their doo!H
?argaretH I...J >o sleep close up that deadly eye o$ thine)
Cnless it 3e 0hile so!e tor!enting drea!
"$$rights thee 0ith a hell o$ ugly de&ils.I...J
6Richard III) "ct I) Scene III) 22.12277
In "ct III) Scene III) the characters o$ Grey and %i&ers co!!ent on ?argaret/s curses
on indi&iduals in&ol&ed in %ichard/s plotting as 0ell as on %ichard hi!sel$) in the
!o!ent they are to 3e !urdered upon %ichard/s orderH
GreyH >o0 ?argaret/s curse is $all/n on *astings) you and I)
+or standing 3y 0hen %ichard sta33ed her son.
%i&. Then curs/d she %ichard) then curs/d she Buckingha!)
Then curs/d she *astings I...J
6Richard III) "ct III) Scene III) 1.11#7
In contrast to the anony!ous play) Shakespeare uses the character o$ ?argaret
consistently) in a 0ell1planned 0ay and 0ith thought$ully de&eloped o3(ecti&es. +irst)
he lets her cast a curse on the &illainous characters) to 0arn the! o$ the $uture that is to
3e$all the! and re&eals to the! their respecti&e $ates and su3se;uent death. These
speeches o$ ?argaret al0ays $ind their counterparts in the speeches o$ the respecti&e
characters that 0ere addressed 3y her pre&iously. The responses o$ the respecti&e
characters al0ays appear se&eral acts later) a$ter a course o$ treacherous actions carried
out 3y the! and their end dra0s nearer. It is in the !o!ent they reali=e their cri!es that
they thus percei&e their situation as a punish!ent $or 0hat they ha&e done. By this
24
care$ul linkage) Shakespeare co!ple!ents his plot 0ith an additional !oral di!ension
not to 3e $ound in the True Tragedy. This interconnection o$ ?argaret/s curses and their
$ul$il!ent in $or! o$ the punish!ent o$ the &illains can 3e illustrated in the case o$ Ford
Buckingha!. ?argaret $irst addresses hi! in "ct I Scene IIIH
?argaretH 5hat) dost thou scorn !e $or !y gentle counselQ
"nd soothe the de&il that I 0arn thee $ro!Q
E) 3ut re!e!3er this another day)
5hen he shall split thy &ery heart 0ith sorro0)
"nd say poor ?argaret 0as a prophetess.
6Richard III) "ct I) Scene III) 764176#7
"nd Buckingha!/s reaction to this prophecy) si!ilar to ?argaret/s speech also in
0ords) in "ct D Scene IH
Buck. I...J Thus ?argaret/s curse $alls hea&y on !y neckH
B5hen he)/ ;uoth she) Bshall split thy heart 0ith sorro0)
%e!e!3er) ?argaret 0as a prophetessP/
6Richard III) "ct D) Scene I) 2.1277
"dditionally) Shakespeare co!ple!ented his use o$ the concepts o$ 0itch) curse
and $oreseeing 0ith ele!ent o$ prophecy. *o0e&er) the i!pact o$ prophecy is %ichard/s
intention and the !essage should help hi! to insert so!e distortion 3et0een the @ing
and his $ollo0ers and illustrates his 0icked intentions and treachery. In his introductory
!onologue %ichard saysH
%ich. I...J By drunken prophecies) li3els) and drea!s
To set !y 3rother -larence and the @ing
In deadly hate) the one against the otherH
"nd i$ @ing <d0ard 3e as true and (ust
as I a! su3tle) $alse) and treacherous)
This day should -larence closely 3e !e0/d up
"3out a prophecy) 0hich says that BG/
E$ <d0ard/s heirs the !urderer shall 3e1 I...J
2.
6Richard III) "ct I) Scene I) 3314'7
+ar $ro! ha&ing any dra!atic $unction) this $ake prophecy is used only to pro&ide
testi!ony to %ichard 0ickedness and ill o3(ecti&esA it does not ha&e a proper e$$ect on
the play as such. >e&ertheless) together 0ith the e&er1present ele!ent o$ ?argaret/s
$oreseeing) it co!ple!ents 0ell the nature o$ the play and !ore i!portantly its !oral
di!ension.
"nother i!portant ele!ent present in 3oth the plays is a drea!. Si!ilar to the
a3o&e !entioned e2a!ples) the usage o$ a drea! in the respecti&e plays also di$$ers in
ter!s o$ conte2t) $re;uency and i!portance to the play. In the True Tragedy) there is
only one re$erence to a drea!H
GueenH I...J "h s0eet children) 0hen I a! at rest !y nightly drea!s are dread$ul.
?ethinks as I lie in 3ed) I see the league 3roken 0hich 0as s0orn
at the death o$ your kingly $ather
6The True Tragedy7
"lthough the drea! in this speech is !entioned as a source o$ prophetical &ision into
the $uture) 0arning the Gueen o$ the treacherous actions o$ her ene!ies) it does not ha&e
any conse;uences. The li!ited dra!atic $unction o$ this re$erence is caused 3y the
discreteness o$ the speech. These lines con&ey a certain le&el o$ prophetic $unction) 3ut
this special !eaning is not de&eloped in su3se;uent passages and lacks i!ple!entation.
It is not e&en connected to the a3o&e discussed passage on the curse. There$ore) its
dra!atic po0er is rather li!ited and cannot in$luence the $ollo0ing course o$ the play.
It has its potentialA ho0e&er) this potential is not de&eloped) si!ply due to the $act that it
does not present ele!ents that 0ould 3e central to the play. Since the $ocus lies in the
narrati&e and historical perspecti&e and) as it see!s) the o3(ecti&e o$ the play is to
present an account o$ e&ents in one historical period) it 0as pro3a3ly not the intention o$
the author to de&elop the di!ension o$ the Supernatural or anything !ystical.
In Richard III the concept o$ drea! is !uch $urther ela3orated and has a &ery
i!portant role and $unction in the play. Ene o$ the style o$ use o$ the drea! 3y
Shakespeare is connected 0ith the third $or! o$ the Supernatural discussed N the ghost.
The introduction o$ the drea! $ollo0s the traditions concerning popular 3elie$s on
drea!s during the <li=a3ethan ti!es presented in the $irst chapter N as a link 3et0een
the real 0orld and the 0orld o$ the dead. *o0e&er) the use o$ this concept co!para3le
26
to the anony!ous play and 0ith si!ilar attri3utes as the a3o&e !entioned re$erence is
as a !eans o$ $oretelling the $uture. In "ct I) Scene ID -larence has a $oretelling drea!)
unco&ering his $uture to hi!. *o0e&er) contrary to the True Tragedy) re$erence to
drea! is $urther ela3orated. >ot only does the drea! present an accusation o$ -larence
$or his e&il deeds) charging hi! 0ith a !urder) 3ut !ost i!portantly this apparition
enli&ens -larence/s 3ad conscience and e2erts !oral pressure on hi!H
-la.H I...J -larence is co!eH $alse) $leeting) per(ur/d -larence)
That sta33/d !e in the $ield 3y Te0kes3uryP
Sei=e on hi!) +uriesP Take hi! unto tor!entP
6Richard III) "ct I) Scene ID) ..1.77
The e$$ect o$ the drea! is !ani$ested in the $ollo0ing speech o$ -larence) as he
3eco!es a0are o$ the 3urden that lies on his shoulders and regrets his deedsH
I...J "h) @eeper) @eeper) I ha&e done these things)
That no0 gi&e e&idence to !y soul)
+or <d0ard/s sakeH and see ho0 he re;uites !e.
6Richard III) "ct I) Scene ID) 6616#7
By the accusati&e content o$ the drea! and 3y introducing this re$lecti&e passage a$ter
the introduction) Shakespeare e2erts !oral i!pact on his character. "s -lark states) 8the
e$$ect Io$ this drea!J is to $righten -larence into repentance $or past !isdeeds 3e$ore
s0i$t and &iolent death o&ertakes hi!9 6-lark 1367. I$ the drea! 0as introduced as a
!ere co!!ent on $uture e&ents) 0ithout the additional di!ension o$ guilt and a
(usti$ied punish!ent) its dra!atic &alue 0ould 3e $ar less. Si!ilar to the anony!ous
play) it 0ould e&oke an o&er0hel!ing e2pectation to0ards the $uture) 3ut 0ould not
$or! a connection 3et0een the actions and 3eha&iour o$ the characters and their $ate.
The third $or! o$ the Supernatural in&ol&ed in 3oth plays is the apparition o$ a
ghost. In the anony!ous play as 0ell as in Shakespeare/s tragedy) the introduction o$
the ghost ser&es as !eans $or e2ercising (ustice. The ghost is there to $or!ulate the
accusation o$ the respecti&e characters. *o0e&er) this $unction has in each o$ the plays a
di$$erent e2tent and di$$erent !ani$estation. In this third co!parison) the te2tual
rele&ance to the scene including the ghost is the !ost di$$erent one. >ot only is there a
27
di$$erence o$ te2tual as 0ell as !eaning$ul linking1up o$ the su3se;uent scenes to this
apparition) 3ut the di$$erence lies also in the style o$ its incorporation in the te2t. In The
True Tragedy the ghost is present only once) and !ost i!portantly in the introductory
passage) 0hereas Richard III includes a procession o$ ghosts o$ people killed 3y
%ichard or on his 3ehal$ incorporated directly in the te2t o$ the play in the "ct D. The
introductory passage o$ the anony!ous play $ollo0s the Senecan !odel o$ re&enge
tragedy descri3ed in the pre&ious chapter. The ghost George) uke o$ -larence)
de!ands to 3e a&enged and to see the acco!plish!ent o$ the re&enge. This appearance
does not ha&e any direct dra!atic $unction in this play) apart $ro! dra0ing the attention
to the plot and pro&iding a starting point $or the introductory discussion 3y the
characters o$ Truth and :oetry.
GhostH -resce cruorP Sanguis satietur sanguineP
-resce) Guod spero cito. E cito) cito) &endictaP9
IIncrease) 3loodP Fet 3lood 3e satiated 3y 3loodP
%ise up that 0hich I hope $or ;uicklyP
E ;uickly) ;uickly) re&engePJ
6True Tragedy7
"lthough this use o$ the ghost also 3rings along the issue o$ !orality) (ustice and
re&enge) it is not $urther ela3orated in the course o$ the play itsel$. In this detached
position it has no direct i!pact on the plot or on the characters and there is no re$le2i&e
re$erence to it in the te2t.
The &ery contrary position o$ the ghost1scene in Shakespeare/s play suggests its
di$$erent intention. Shakespeare in&ol&es a procession o$ ghosts in "ct D) Scene III)
prior to the $inal 3attle on Bos0orth +ield 3et0een %ichard III and *enry Tudor) <arl o$
%ich!ond. These are the ghosts killed 3y %ichard or on his 3ehal$ and they approach
hi! and his ri&al %ich!ond through their drea!s) al0ays 0ith si!ilar speech. +irst they
address %ichard and $oretell his de$eatA then they approach %ich!ond and $oretell his
&ictory. 5hen they talk to %ichard) they re!ind hi! o$ the har! he did to the!) the
0ay he killed the! and 0arn %ichard that they 0ill 3e occupying his !ind during the
3attle) sayingH 8Fet !e sit hea&e on thy soul to!orro09) 8To!orro0 in the 3attle think
on !e9) 8rea! on thy cousins) s!other/d in the To0er9) 8rea! on) drea!s on o$
3loody deeds and death9) and 8Bloody and guilty) guilty a0ake9) and 8In a 3loody
2#
3attle end thy days9. En the contrary) 0hen addressing %ich!ond) the ghosts assure
hi! o$ their co!pany and assistanceH 8Be cheer$ul) %ich!ond) $or the 0ronged souls o$
3utcher/d princes $ight in thy 3ehal$9) 8Good angels guard thy 3attleA li&e and $lourish9)
8Sleep) %ich!ond) sleep in peace) and 0ake in (oy9) or 8rea! o$ success and happy
&ictory9. The respecti&e i!portance o$ the speeches addressed to %ichard lies in their
connection to the past. The indi&idual apparitions o$ ghosts can 3e percei&ed as
personi$ications o$ %ichard/s conscience) re!inders o$ his &illainous deeds. The ghosts
say that they 0ill $ollo0 hi! to the 3attle $ield) i!plying thus that his !e!ories o$ his
sins and his 3ad conscience 0ill 3e e&er present there. To %ich!ond) the 0ords o$ the
ghosts 3ring encourage!ent and (usti$ication $or his case. The !oral i!pact o$ this
scene) a3o&e all on %ichard) is achie&ed 3y its interconnection 0ith the $ollo0ing
scenes. The drea! has a discouraging e$$ect on %ichard. 5hen he 0akes up) he is
insecure) 0eak and $rightened.
@.%ich.H E %atcli$$e) I ha&e drea!/d a $ear$ul drea!P
5hat thinkest thou10ill our $riends pro&e all trueQ
I...J E %atcli$$e) I $ear) I $earP
6Richard III) "ct D) Scene III) 2127
The i!pact o$ the night apparitions on %ich!ond is ;uite the contrary. 5hen he later
talks to his soldiers) he con&eys to the! 0hat 0as co!!unicated to hi! in his drea!)
telling the! that their &ictory is $ully (usti$ied) reasona3le and $oretold 0ith all the
support and $a&our neededH
%ich!ondH I...J God) and our good cause) $ight upon our sideA
The prayers o$ holy saints and 0ronged souls)
Fike high1rear/d 3ul0arks) stand 3e$ore our $aces I...J
6Richard III) "ct D) Scene III) 24112437
Ste0ard co!!ents on the scenes $ollo0ing the appearance o$ ghosts as $ollo0sH
8There is so!ething appalling in the thought o$ the acti&e) conscienceless !an) tied to
his couch 3y the chains o$ slu!3er) helpless to shake o$$ the terri3le !e!ories)
co!pelled to act o&er again each cri!e) to see the &ery $or! o$ each su$$erer) ghastly)
29
reproach$ul) threatening. "0ake) he 0ould ha&e de$ied the! 0ith so!e ne0 cri!e or
&iolent action) 3ut asleep he 0as at their !ercy N he could only ga=e and !elt in an
agony o$ $ear9 6Ste0ard .'7.
By including the ghost ele!ents in one o$ the $inal scenes) Shakespeare
e2ercises !oral pressure on %ichard and 0akens his conscience) 0hich see!s to ha&e
3een suppressed so $ar. "$ter the con$rontation 0ith the ghosts o$ his &icti!s) %ichard is
not sel$1assured any longer and a0aits his (usti$ied doo!. Cnder the in$luence o$ the
dread$ul drea! he $inally ad!its 3eing a !urderer 0ho should 3e su3(ect to re&enge
and punish!ent.
@.%ich.H I...J E co0ard conscience) ho0 dost thou a$$lict !ePI...J
I...J 5hat do I $earQ ?ysel$Q There/s none else 3yA
%ichard lo&es %ichard) that is) I and I.
Is there a !urderer hereQ >o. Res) I a!P
Then $ly. 5hat) $ro! !ysel$Q Great reason 0hy)
Fest I re&engeQ 5hat) !ysel$ upon !ysel$Q I...J
6Richard III) "ct D) Scene III) 1#'11#97
The ghost1scenes pro&ide a !oral cli!a2 o$ Shakespeare/s tragedy. The !ost i!portant
dra!atic i!pact o$ these apparitions does not lie in so!e supernatural po0er 3eing
e2hi3ited 3y the ghosts and de!onstrated to %ichard) 3ut rather in the !oral !essage
con&eyed 3y the!. "s -lark says) 8The Ghosts o$ %ichard III are not endo0ed 0ith any
real po0er o&er !ortals. Their in$luence is li!ited to producing discourage!ent in
%ichard and con$idence in %ich!ond. I...J the supernatural $orecast o$ a natural e&ent
0as a po0er$ul dra!atic aid) since the po0er o$ spirits to see into the $uture 0as
allo0ed 3y the <li=a3ethans9 6-lark 1347.
I$ 0e consider the o&erall i!pact o$ Shakespeare/s use o$ the supernatural in
Richard III in co!parison to The True Tragedy of Richard III* 0e dra0 the $ollo0ing
conclusionH "s $ar as the use o$ the ele!ents o$ 0itch) drea! and ghost are concerned) it
is possi3le to conclude that in Shakespeare/s dra!a these $eatures pro&ide the $unction
o$ !oral catalyst in relation to the characters. 5hether ?argaret/s curse throughout the
play) the ghosts in the last act) or the drea! through 0hich -larence learns o$ his
destitution) these are al0ays directed at the &illains o$ the play as !eans o$ !oral
pressure and su3se;uent punish!ent. These ele!ents do not directly pro&ide $or the
3'
punish!ent itsel$) 3ut e2ercise such in$luence and e$$ect on the particular characters that
the $inal outco!e gains such !oral &alue that the person a$$ected si!ply takes it as
punish!ent $or his e&il deeds done in the past. This !oral di!ension is enhanced 3y the
arrange!ent o$ the supernatural ele!ents throughout the 0hole course o$ the play. The
scenes introducing so!e $or! o$ the Supernatural are !utually interconnected and are
$ollo0ed 3y re$lections o$ the characters. The apparitions do not stand on their o0n in
the te2t) 3ut are supported 3y other re$erences.
En the other hand) the dra!atic $unction o$ the supernatural $eatures in the True
Tragedy of Richard III is rather li!ited. "lthough 0e can detect re$erences si!ilar to
those present in Shakespeare/s tragedy) their i!pact on the course o$ the play and) !ost
i!portantly) on the de&elop!ent o$ characters) is li!ited. ue to li!itations in the
respecti&e conte2t and lack o$ $urther occurrences and re$erences to such supernatural
$eatures) the i!pact e2erted on the characters is rather li!ited. The apparitions do not
introduce any signi$icant !oral di!ension in the playA the characters are si!ply let to
de&elop 3y !eans o$ their !utual interaction) regardless o$ any !oral in$luences upon
the!. The ele!ent o$ !oral di!ension) conscience and punish!ent can 3e detected in
this anony!ous play as 0ell) although not incorporated directly in the te2t itsel$. The
ghost in the prologue to the play calls $or re&enge) 0hich) ho0e&er) does not actually
appear in the play. En the other hand) this re&enge and the desired outco!e is achie&ed
in Richard III) although not directly) 3ut indirectly 3y the !oral pressure e2erted 3y the
ghosts. >one o$ the characters o$ Shakespeare/s play 0ould think o$ 0hat is happening
to hi!4her as o$ a punish!ent 6or re&enge7) 3eing it not $or the link 0ith an outco!e
$oretold 3y ?argaret or 0ithout the procession o$ ghosts in the case o$ %ichard.
There$ore) the dra!atic po0er o$ the use o$ the supernatural $eatures here does not lie in
direct i!pact) 3ut in the indirect in$luence upon the character/s !inds and the
con$rontation 0ith their conscience. The ai! o$ the ghost and prophecies e!ployed is to
0ake up the 3ad conscience o$ the &illains and to !ake the! reali=e and ad!it their
!istakes.
There$ore) it can 3e concluded that the di$$erent use o$ the Supernatural in the
respecti&e plays is a result o$ the di$$erent $ocus o$ the respecti&e plays. The author o$
the anony!ous play concentrated !ore on the plot) on account o$ the historical e&ents)
0ith no special $ocus on the indi&idual characters and their de&elop!ent. Thus he used
the greater part o$ his play to descri3e the actions and circu!stances o$ the e&ents and
le$t &ery little space $or a thorough portrayal o$ his characters) as these 0ere si!ply not
31
his area o$ interest. En the other hand) the core o$ Shakespeare/s tragedy lies in his
characters. uring the portrayal o$ their actions and de&elop!ents) the historical e&ents
pro&ide (ust !ere 3ackground. Shakespeare shi$ted the $ocus o$ his play to the central
&illainous character o$ %ichard and his acco!plices and 0ith the use o$ the Supernatural
descri3ed a3o&e enhanced the historical account o$ $ights $or po0er to a story 0ith a
strong !oral di!ension and a !oti$ o$ a cri!e and a punish!ent.
32
!.1.2 Sejanus, His Fall #s. Julius Caesar
The second pair o$ plays to 3e co!pared can 3e descri3ed as %o!an plays.
Shakespeare/s Julius Caesar as 0ell as ,onson/s e!anus* His "all share a higher
nu!3er o$ co!!on $eatures than could 3e detected in the case o$ the preceding pair o$
dra!as. The !ain co!!on $eatures include the inspiration $or the plots and the o&erall
characters o$ the dra!as. Ene o$ the !ain sources that 3oth ,onson as 0ell as
Shakespeare used 0ere :lutarch/s 'i$es of the Noble (recians and Romans) pu3lished
in 1.79 in an <nglish translation) na!ely te2ts concerning ?arcus Brutus) ,ulius -aesar
and ?arcus "ntonius
#
. The topics $ro! the ti!e o$ %o!e 0ere &ery popular in the
<li=a3ethan ti!e and a3o&e all the story o$ ,ulius -aesar and the conspiracy against hi!
has 3een ela3orated !any ti!es already 3e$ore Shakespeare. Both dra!as present
stories $ull o$ $acts and historical in$or!ation) 0hich) especially in the case o$ ,onson)
0here thoroughly studied $ro! &arious sources. Both authors took $ro! these sources
the o&erall character o$ the play as 0ell N an at!osphere $ull o$ superstitions)
astrological pheno!ena and re$erences to gods) 3ecause as -lark suggestsH 8The
%o!ans 0ere e2tre!ely superstitious9 6-lark 1247. Thus) a certain e&er1presence o$ the
supernatural or so!ething Bout o$ the hu!an 0orld/ can 3e detected in 3oth plays.
,onson/s e!anus* His "all 0as $irst staged in 16'3. The play 0as entered into
the Stationers/ %egister on >o&e!3er) 2) 16'4) and 0as pu3lished in Guarto in 16'.
and in 1616. *o0e&er) the history o$ ,onson/s play on the stage is &ery short) as it 0as
staged only se&eral ti!es and then 0ithdre0 due to the lack o$ pu3lic interest. e!anus
presents a con$lict o$ po0ers N a con$lict 3et0een those already in po0er 6Ti3erius
-aesar7 and those a!3itious ones that 0ant to gain the po0er $or the!sel&es 6"elius
Se(anus7. The !ain character o$ Se(anus is portrayed as a &ery plotting and a!3itious
character) 0ho 0ants to 3y !eans o$ su3&ersi&e actions 0in the e!pire. *e opposes not
only Ti3erius) 3ut also the princes and their !other "grippina. Se(anus tries to persuade
Ti3erius to retire $ro! %o!e) 3ut Ti3erius disco&ers the true nature o$ Se(anus and 0ith
the help o$ his $ollo0ers prepares a stratage! on hi!. Se(anus is in&ited to the Senate in
order to 3e praised as the successor to Ti3erius. *o0e&er) he is only accused o$ his
&illainous deeds and treason and is su3se;uently punished 3y the people o$ %o!e.
#
The $ollo0ing 3i3liographical data 0as taken $ro! the pre$ace toH Shakespeare) 5illia!. The Tragedy
o$ ,ulius -aesar. <d. >or!an Sanders. *ar!onds0orthH :enguin Books) 1967 and toH ,onson) Ben.
Se(anusH *is +all. Bi3lioBa=aar) FF-) 2''6. "&aila3le at Google Books. KhttpH443ooks.google.c=4L
33
,onson/s dra!a presents a co!prehensi&e description o$ %o!an society) 0ith its
strengths and 0eaknesses) con&entions and traditions. ,onson 0rote his 8BSe(anus/ like a
scholar) reading Tacitus) Suetonius) and other authorities) to 3e certain o$ his $acts) his
setting) and his at!osphere9.
9
Thanks to this thorough research his dra!a is ela3orated
into e&ery $ine detail. ,onson/s !ain $ocus in this play is on the corruption o$ the
society) lack o$ true &alues and respect) and he points at the lo0 !oral ;ualities o$ the
!e!3ers o$ the society. By portraying the 0icked and !anipulati&e tendencies o$
Se(anus and his $ollo0ers) ,onson presents a criticis! o$ ethos o$ indi&idual characters.
In ter!s o$ style) e!anus is 0ritten in rather co!plicated language and the speeches o$
the indi&idual characters ha&e high rhetorical ;ualities. In general) the !oral di!ension
o$ play is !ani$ested !ostly te2tually. The !oral &alues are !ore apparent $ro! the
dialogues and !onologues o$ the characters than $ro! their actions) 0hich rather
pro&ide $or the general 3ackground o$ this rhetorical !ani$estation. This pro!inent
rhetorical and $or!al ;uality o$ the te2t is) on the other hand) to the e2clusion o$ sharply
portrayed characters and their ;ualities. Though ,onson/s play contains the !ar&ellously
rich language and sustained !oral tone that !ark ,onson/s !ore success$ul 0orks) it is
historically punctilious to the point o$ a3surdity) o$ten sacri$icing dra!atic tension and
e!otional satis$action $or the sake o$ such accuracy) and lacks anything like the nuance
o$ character or senti!ent that !ark the tragic 0orks o$ ,onson/s conte!poraries.
1'

Shakespeare/s Tragedy of Julius Caesar 0as $irst printed in a +olio edition in
1623) ho0e&er) the e2act date o$ its origin is not kno0n. " per$or!ance 0as !entioned
3y Tho!as :latter the Rounger in his diary in Septe!3er 1.99. The play is not
!entioned in the list o$ Shakespeare/s plays pu3lished 3y +rancis ?eres in 1.9# and
there$ore) the year o$ 1.99 0as suggested as the supposed year 0hen Shakespeare !ight
ha&e 0ritten it. Shakespeare/s tragedy presents a story o$ the %o!an e!peror -aesar)
0ho 0as !urdered 3y conspirators led 3y -assius and his $or!ed $riend Brutus)
presenting thus a con$lict 3et0een de!ocratic and !onarchical perspecti&es. The play/s
cli!a2 is a 3attle 3et0een -aesar/s successors and the conspirators) resulting in de$eat
o$ the conspirators and death o$ one o$ the conspirators) Brutus. Shakespeare descri3es
in detail all the plots and intrigues that preceded the !urder o$ -aesar in the Senate) as
0ell as !utual relations o$ the indi&idual conspirators. "dditionally to this $ocus on the
9
Introduction toH ,onson) Ben. Se(anusH *is +all. Bi3lioBa=aar) FF-) 2''6. "&aila3le at Google Books.
KhttpH443ooks.google.c=4L
1'
Byrne) :eter. The Fiterary <ncyclopedia. 4th "pril.
KhttpH44000.litencyc.co!4php4s0orks.phpQrecStrueTCIS2191L
34
plot actions) Shakespeare also portrays and !ani$ests the characteristics and ;ualities o$
his particular characters. *o0e&er) $ar !ore i!portant is the 3leak and transcendental
at!osphere that surrounds the characters. Si!ilar to ,onson/s) Shakespeare/s tragedy is
set against a 3ackground o$ &arious supernatural as 0ell as natural apparitions 6stor!
0ith lightning7) e!ployed in a &ery e$$ecti&e !anner. Such e$$ects and pheno!ena
ser&es as instru!ents $or 3uilding up an at!osphere o$ $ear and $ore3oding. This
gloo!y en&iron!ent aptly co!ple!ents the per$idious designs o$ the conspirators and
also the $ollo0ing scenes 0hen the conspirators proceed 0ith their a!3itious plans) 3ut
still ha&e the cri!e on their !inds.
"s $ar as the e!ploy!ent o$ the Supernatural in these te2ts is concerned) 3oth
plays see!ingly $ollo0 the sa!e pattern. "t $irst) si!ilar to the pre&iously co!pared
pair o$ plays) 3oth pieces o$ dra!a e!ploy general re$erences that re$lect %o!an
traditions as 0ell as the popular 3elie$s o$ <li=a3ethan <ngland. ,onson as 0ell as
Shakespeare use re$erences to gods and astrological portents) including unnatural
0eather conditions. Both authors also !ake se&eral re$erences to stars in general) as an
8authority9 that can deter!ine the success or !is$ortune o$ !ortals) as 0ell as to
speci$ic gods that 0ere popular in %o!an ti!es and 0ith 0hich the <li=a3ethan
audience 0as $a!iliar) such as :allas) Denus and ,o&e.
*o0e&er) these are only general re$erences and are not attri3uted any dra!atic
&alue 3y their respecti&e authors. Both ,onson as 0ell as Shakespeare con$ront their
characters 0ith unnatural apparitions and pheno!ena and let the! 0onder a3out their
!eaning and purpose) 3y 0hich they raise their suspicions) e2cite their $eeling o$
insecurity and let the! act 0ith such outstanding pheno!ena occupying their !ind.
This supernatural 3ackground and at!osphere o$ so!ething unnatural 0inds like
co!!on thread through 3oth the plays. *o0e&er) this strange at!osphere does not
in&ol&e only unnatural apparitions) e.g. astrono!ical apparitions or strange 3eha&iour o$
hea&enly 3odies) 0ith prophetical attri3utions. "s -lark suggests) 8to an <li=a3ethan
audience) steeped as it 0as in astrology) these celestial distur3ances 0ould 3ear a
pro$ound signi$icance9 6-lark 12#7. *o0e&er) ordinary ani!als also signi$icantly
contri3ute to the at!osphere o$ the supernatural and their rather natural 3eha&iour is)
under the conditions o$ e2pecting so!ething disastrous to happen) interpreted as ha&ing
so!e supernatural di!ension in it. In this respect) attention is also paid to species o$ the
3irds) as e.g. ra&ens are attri3uted di$$erent !eaning than eagles. Both plays in&ol&e
supernatural e&ents and happenings that re$lect and signi$icantly support and outline the
3.
suggested !oral le&el o$ the play. >e&ertheless) 3oth authors used the Supernatural in a
distincti&e 0ay) 0hich ser&es their particular purposes.
,onson/s play introduces &arious $or!s o$ the Supernatural and unnatural
apparitions and pheno!ena. The general o3(ecti&e o$ such re$erences is to suggest a
0arning addressed to Se(anus against proceeding $urther 0ith his intrigues against the
<!peror and his $a!ily and to point at the e&ilness o$ his doings. ,onson thus dra0s an
attention to ;uestion o$ (ustice or in(ustice o$ Se(anus/ proceedings and stresses the
!oral aspect o$ the play/s actions.
Ter.H I !eet it &iolent in the people/s !ouths)
5ho run in routs to :o!pey/s theatre)
To &ie0 your statue) 0hich) they say) sends
$orth
" s!oke) as $ro! a $urnace) 3lack and dread$ul.
6e!anus* His "all* "ct D) Scene I) 271317
Ter.H ?inutius tells us here) !y lord)
That a ne0 head 3eing set upon your statue)
" rope is since $ound 0reath/d a3out itP and)
But no0 a $iery !eteor in the $or!
o$ a great 3all 0as seen to roll along
The trou3led air) 0here yet it hangs unper$ect.
The a!a=ing 0onder o$ the !ultitudeP
6e!anus* His "al* "ct D) Scene I) 3'613127
The a3o&e !entioned speeches re$er to the statue o$ Se(anus and the o!inous 6as
Terentius percei&es the!7 pheno!ena that are happening around it and in its &icinity.
There particular speeches are co!ple!ented 3y se&eral !ore lines 0hich also suggest
the prophetical as 0ell as o!inous nature o$ these apparitions and are directed upon
Se(anus as a !eans o$ !oral 0arning.
*o0e&er) ,onson did not connect these supernatural 0arnings 0ith such a
response $ro! Se(anus) 0hich 0ould i!ply a re$lecti&e reaction to these signs) or 0hich
0ould suggest that such sights !ade Se(anus to search his conscience and to depart
$ro! the course o$ actions he took. The prodigious and threatening attri3utes o$ such
36
e&ents are rather pointed at 3y other characters around Se(anus 6see the t0o speeches
a3o&e7) 0ho stress the 0arning potential o$ these apparitions. 5hen Se(anus re$ers to
the!) his speech does not i!ply any $ear$ul attitude to0ards the prophetical signs and
nor any lesson he 0ould take $ro! this e2perienceH
Se(H I...J By you that $ools call gods)
*ang all the sky 0ith your prodigious signs)
+ill earth 0ith !onsters) drop the scorpion do0n.
Eut o$ the =odiac) or the $iercer lion)
Shake o$$ the loosen/d glo3e $ro! her long hing)
%oll all the 0orld in darkness) and let loose
The enraged 0inds to turn up gro&es and to0nsP
5hen I do $ear again) let !e 3e struck
5ith $orked $ire and upitied dieH
5ho $ears) is 0orthy o$ cala!ity.
6e!anus* His "all* "ct D) Scene DII) 67116#'7
>e&ertheless) ,onson co!pensates this lack o$ re$lection to0ards these signs on the part
o$ the characters 0ith a shi$t o$ $ocus to the te2tual le&el. *e !ani$ests the !oral
di!ensions through conte!plations o$ his characters on &arious !oral ;uestions rather
than let the! re$er to the se&eral supernatural signs he incorporated in the te2t. In other
0ords) the high rhetorical ;ualities o$ the te2t and the !oral issues 0hich are
conte!plated 3y the characters pre&ail o&er the i!portance o$ the Supernatural as a
$eature o$ !oral catalyst.
En the other hand) Shakespeare/s e2tended use o$ &arious supernatural signs and
pheno!ena in his play) 0hich are co!ple!ented 3y e!ploy!ent 3y the concept o$ a
drea! and a ghost) suggest a di$$erent $unction o$ the Supernatural than in the case o$
,onson/s play 6i$ ,onson/s use o$ the Supernatural has so!e $unction at all7. In
co!parison to e!anus) Shakespeare/s tragedy presents a signi$icantly greater nu!3er o$
&arious supernatural and prodigious signs) as 0ell as those o$ a natural character) 0hich
are) ho0e&er) interpreted as introducing the supernatural or prophetical aspects. The
o!nipresent supernatural 3ackground $or the actions and e&ents o$ the plot is
!ani$ested in se&eral descriptions o$ unnatural apparitions.
37
-ascaH I...J "gainst the -apitol I !et a lion)
5ho gla=ed upon !e) and 0ent surly 3y)
5ithout annoying !e. "nd there 0ere dra0n
Cpon a heap a hundred ghastly 0o!en)
Trans$or!ed 0ith their $ear) 0ho s0ore they sa0
?en) all in $ire) 0alk up and do0n the streets.
"nd yesterday the 3ird o$ night did sit)
<&en at noon1day) upon the !arket1place)
*ooting and shrieking. 5hen these prodigies
o so con(ointly !eet) let not !en say)
BThese are their reasons) they are natural/A
+or I 3elie&e) they are portentous things
Cnto the cli!ate that they point upon.
6Julius Caesar) "ct I) Scene III) 2' 1 327
The strange at!osphere o$ the night is repeatedly discussed and re$erred to 3y !any
characters in Shakespeare/s play. The characters argue a3out the purpose o$ such signs
as 0ell as their !eaning. Shakespeare included re$erences and co!!entaries on the
conditions surrounding his characters in short speeches constantly re!inding the
audience or the reader o$ the en&iron!ent and thus suggesting its &ital i!portance $or
the play) 3ut also into se&eral su3se;uent dialogues ela3orating on the issue o$ the
supernatural signs in !ore detail. In co!parison to e!anus) Shakespeare ad&ances 0ith
the portrayal o$ the dark and o!inous at!osphere o$ the play also 3y appropriate use o$
stage directions. Darious scenes are additionally detailed 0ith directions saying
8Thunder and lightning9 or 8Thunder still9.
"s an e2a!ple o$ such thorough usage o$ the supernatural apparitions) -assius and
-asca discuss the strange tokens that ha&e appeared in "ct I Scene IIIH
I...J To see the strange i!patience o$ hea&ensA
and they conclude that the true cause o$ the portents in $or! o$ 8$ires9) 8gliding ghosts9)
83irds and 3easts9 is 8that hea&en hath in$used the! 0ith these spirits
To !ake the instru!ents o$ $ear and 0arning
Cnto so!e !onstrous state9
3#
and -assius gi&es an account o$ all the &arious apparitions that can 3e seen on the night
preceding the assassinationH
?ost like this dread$ul night)
That thunders) lightens) opens gra&es) and roars
"s doth the lion in the -apitolA
6Julius Caesar) "ct I) Scene III7
<ach o$ the included re$erences to the prodigious e&ents i!poses a suggestion o$ so!e
$uture disastrous e&ent. In "ct I) Scene II) a soothsayer 0arns -aesar that so!e unlucky
e&ents 0ill transpire in ?archH
SoothsayerH Be0are the ides o$ ?arch
6Julius Caesar) "ct I) Scene II) 177
By these gradual and continuous prodigious re$erences Shakespeare prepared the
ground $or the key !o!ent o$ his play N the !urder o$ ,ulius -aesar. *o0e&er) the
unnatural en&iron!ent o$ the play is not relie&ed at all $ollo0ing the !urder.
Shakespeare includes these strange apparitions also to0ards the end o$ the play) 3e$ore
the con$rontation o$ the t0o hostile parties. This continuous presence o$ such hints and
signs pointing at so!ething supernatural $loating around proposes that the !ain cli!a2
o$ the play is still to co!e.
"$ter -aesar/s death Shakespeare does not a3andon the conspirators) 3ut lets
the! 3e haunted 3y apparitions that re!ind the! o$ their guilt) 3eing these supernatural
or natural signs. -assius co!!ents on strange sights that appeared to the! 0hen
approaching the place o$ the 3attle. They !et t0o eagles that $ollo0ed the! to :hilippiH
-assiusH This !orning are they $led a0ay and gone)
"nd in their steads do ra&ens) cro0s) and kites
+ly oMer our heads and do0n0ard look on us)
" canopy !ost $atal) under 0hich
Eur ar!y lies) ready to gi&e up the ghost
6Julius Caesar) "ct D) Scene I) 9'1947
39
>e&ertheless) $ollo0ing the !urder o$ -aesar) the direction o$ interpretation o$ such
signs and apparitions see!s to change) as the signs are interpreted 3y the conspirators as
pointing to their approaching death. The o&erall dark and supernatural at!osphere o$
the play re!ains) 3ut has shi$ted !ore on the side o$ the &illains and is enriched 3y the
presence o$ -aesar/s Spirit. The $ollo0ing speech illustrates the situation a$ter the
assassination in the SenateH
Tre3oniusH I...J ?en) 0i&es and children stare) cry out) and run)
"s it 0ere doo!sday.
BrutusH +ates) 0e 0ill kno0 our pleasures.
That 0e shall die) 0e kno0A /tis 3ut the ti!e
"nd dra0ing days out) that !en stand upon.
6Julius Caesar) "ct III) Scene I7
So $ar) this analysis has discussed aspects o$ the Supernatural that 3oth the plays share)
although to a &arious e2tent. I ha&e included e2tracts that illustrate the at!osphere and
spirit 0hich the authors attri3uted to their respecti&e plays. Julius Caesar as 0ell as
e!anus* His "all in&ol&e re$erences to gods and goddesses and their po0er o&er the
$ates o$ !ortals. *o0e&er) 3oth plays a3o&e all picture ghastly apparitions supporting
and $urther de&eloping the supernatural at!osphere o$ the play) 0hich success$ully
stress the !ischie$ and ini;uities done 3y conspirators) resp. Se(anus as 0ell as their
0icked characters. >e&ertheless) in co!parison to ,onson) Shakespeare/s ela3oration o$
the supernatural character o$ his play is !ore e2tended. "dditionally to the a3o&e
!entioned &arious apparitions and signs) Shakespeare uses other supernatural $eatures
that help hi! enhance the already e2isting supernatural at!osphere o$ the play. So $ar)
the signs pointed only to0ards the general 3ackground or en&iron!ent o$ the play) and
although such !ani$estations and speeches 0ere addressed and discussed 3y the
characters) such e&ents did not introduce any particular dra!atic po0er or ne0
challenges. By i!ple!entation o$ the concept o$ a drea! and -aesar/s spirit into the
already e2isting supernatural 3ackground o$ the play) Shakespeare shi$ts the $unction o$
the Supernatural onto a dra!atic le&el. These t0o concepts e2ert a direct in$luence on
the course o$ the play as 0ell as on its characters and in co!parison to the general and
not really e2plicit supernatural signs discussed a3o&e) pro&ide a particular and
4'
strea!lined i!pact. The ele!ents o$ a drea! and a ghost are $ollo0ed 3y thoroughly
ela3orated reactions and responses 3y the characters.
Si!ilarly to his other 0orks) Shakespeare uses the ele!ent o$ a drea! 0ith a
signi$icant role o$ a prodigy in respect the planned assassinationH
-aesarH >or hea&en nor earth ha&e 3een at peace tonightA
Trice hath -alphurnia in her sleep cried out)
B*elp) hoP They !urder -aesarP/
6Julius Caesar* "ct II) Scene II) .177
-alphurnia/s drea! has a prophetic $unction and presents a &ery detailed description o$
signs $oretelling -aesar/s death. This e2perience has such a strong i!pact upon
-aesar/s 0i$e that she !akes e$$orts to pre&ent hi! $ro! going to the Senate.
-alphurnia percei&es the content o$ the drea! as a 0arning and a portent 0hich needs
to 3e trustedH
-alphurniaH I...J " lioness hath 0helped in the streets)
and gra&es ha&e ya0ned and yielded up their deadA
+ierce $iery 0arriors $ought upon the clouds
In ranks and s;uadrons and right $or! o$ 0ar)
5hich dri==led 3lood upon -apitolA
The noise o$ 3attle hurtled in the air)
*orses did neigh) and dying !en did groan)
"nd ghosts did shriek and s;uel a3out the streets.
E -aesar) these things are 3eyond all use)
"nd I do $ear the!.
6Julius Caesar) "ct II) Scene II) 171267
This speech rese!3les the utterance o$ -assius in "ct I Scene III 6see a3o&e7) 3ut in
co!parison to his lines) the e$$ect o$ this co!!entary on the opening o$ gra&es is
enhanced 3y the 3ackground o$ the drea!) 0hich attri3utes this utterance an added
&alue o$ greater prophetical relia3ility and authenticity. "lthough si!ilar prodigious
utterances are included se&eral ti!es in the te2t) this particular speech has its speci$ic
i!portance 3ecause it directly connects the prodigious apparition 0ith a particular
41
person and e&ent) not only !aking general re$erences. "lthough the ele!ent o$ a drea!
!erely co!ple!ents the other prodigies and apparitions and the e&er present
at!osphere o$ so!ething unnatural) it does so in a signi$icantly speci$ic and authentic
!anner.
"long 0ith the drea!) another i!portant supernatural ele!ent is that o$ a ghost.
The $irst re$erence to -aesar/s ghost is included in "ct ID) Scene III. In contrast to the
tragedy o$ %ichard III discussed in the preceding section) the ghost o$ -aesar does not
approach through a drea!) 3ut appears to Brutus 0hile readingH
BrutusH *o0 ill this taper 3urnsP *aP 5ho co!es hereP
I think it is the 0eakness o$ !ine eyes
That shapes this !onstrous apparition.
It co!es upon !e. "rt thou any thingQ
"rt thou so!e god) so!e angel) or so!e de&il)
That !ak/st !y 3lood cold) and !y hair to stareQ
Speak to !e 0hat thou art.
GhostH Thy e&il spirit) Brutus.
BrutusH 5hy co!/st thouQ
GhostH To tell thee thou shalt see !e at :hilippi.
BrutusH 5ellA then I shall see thee againQ
GhostH "y) at :hilippi
BrutusH 5hy) I 0ill see thee at :hilippi then.
>o0 I ha&e taken heart) thou &anishest.
Ill spirit) I 0ould hold !ore talk 0ith thee.
6,ulius -aesar) "ct ID) Scene III) 27312#67
Brutus/ reaction to the apparition o$ the ghost does not suggest any great $ear or panic.
"s Ste0art saysH 8"lthough there is no a3nor!al e2cite!ent) the continuous co!pelling
thought o$ the dead -aesar) intensi$ied 3y the i!!inence o$ his o0n death) 3rings hi!
3y degrees into closer touch 0ith the spiritual at!osphere than 0ith the !aterial 0orld
itsel$9 6Ste0art .77.
-o!pared to his other plays in this case) Shakespeare presents a slightly
di$$erent apparition o$ a ghost. Brutus is not (ust a passi&e 0itness to the apparition)
3eing o&er0hel!ed 3y the supernatural spirit o$ 0hat he sees) 3ut he enters into
42
con&ersation 0ith -aesar/s ghost and at con$rontation 0ith so!ething out o$ his 0orld
sho0s no $ear or su3!issi&eness.
The ghost o$ -aesar $or!s another additional aspect to the general supernatural
3ackground o$ the play. The spirit does not !ake !any particular re$erences) 3ut is
!any ti!es re$erred to 3y the characters. The nature o$ the re$erences i!plies that the
presence o$ -aesar/s spirits is $elt constantly 3y all the characters a$$ected and the
particular speeches also suggest re&enge$ul intentions o$ the spirit. "s Ste0art saysH
8The re&enge$ul spirit see!s already to pursue Brutus and -assius as they ride Blike
!ad!en through the gates o$ %o!e./ It ho&ers o&er the city 0hile the 3loodthirsty !o3
tear his ill1o!ened na!e out o$ the poet -inna/s heart9 6Ste0art #17. -learly) the
o!nipresence o$ -aesar/s spirit is $elt 3y all the characters 0hose conscience is
so!eho0 connected to -aesar/s $all.
"ntonyH "nd -aesar/s spirit) ranging $or re&enge)
5ith "te 3y his side) co!e hot $ro! hell I...J
6Julius Caesar) "ct III) Scene I) 27'12737
The apparitions o$ -aesar/s ghost !ake Brutus reali=e that his end is to co!eH
Brutus I kno0 !y hour is co!e.
6Julius Caesar) "ct D) Scene D) 197
uring the 3attle 0hen Brutus and his co!pany are already losing their positions and
are losing one !an a$ter another) Brutus co!!entsH
BrutusH E ,ulius -aesar) thou art !ighty yetP
Thy spirit 0alks a3road) and turns our s0ords
In our o0n proper entrails.
6Julius Caesar) "ct D) Scene III) 941967
The presence o$ -aesar/s ghost 0hich) although not ha&ing 3een seen again) is still
around) does not lea&e Brutus e&en at the point o$ co!!itting suicide.
BrutusH I...J -aesar) no0 3e stillA
I killed not thee 0ith hal$ so good a 0ill
6Julius Caesar) "ct D) Scene III) .'1.17
43
Brutus/ death 0ith -aesar/s na!e on his lips is the 3est !ani$estation o$
Shakespeare dra!atic use o$ the e&er1present spirit o$ -aesar) 0hich together 0ith the
already esta3lished supernatural 3ackground o$ the play) occupies the !inds and !ore
i!portantly the conscience o$ the characters. It is the &ery co!3ination o$ Brutus/
suicide and the o!nipresence o$ -aesar/s ghost that !akes the $inal i!pression that
strong and po0er$ul. I$ Brutus died during the 3attle) although pre&iously ad!itting his
guilt and his respect to -aesar/s ghost) the $inal i!pact 0ould not 3e the sa!e as 0hen
in this case) Brutus/ death is the direct and a3o&e all conscious result o$ the inter$erence
o$ -aesar/s ghost. By presenting Brutus) 0ho 0as o&er0hel!ed 3y the hea&y pressure
o$ his guilt o$ 0hich he 0as re!ained 3y the e&er1present -aesar/s spirit) Shakespeare
achie&es a $inal !oral !essage. " si!ilar !oral conclusion is presented also in
,onson/s play. *o0e&er) in e!anus this o3(ecti&e is achie&ed through the $inal speech
o$ the playH
Ter.H Fet this e2a!ple !o&e the insolent !an)
>ot to gro0 proud and careless o$ the gods.
It is an odious 0isdo! to 3lasphe!e)
?uch !ore to slighten) or deny their po0ersH
+or) 0ho! the !orning sa0 so great and high)
Thus lo0 and little) $or the e&en doth lie.
6e!anus* His "all* "ct D) Scene U) #9#19'37
+ro! the a3o&e !entioned analysis it is i!plied that as $ar as the Supernatural is
concerned) Shakespeare/s Julius Caesar as 0ell as ,onson/s e!anus* His "all share
!any co!!on $eatures. Both plays present supernatural at!osphere created 3y
nu!erous ghastly and unnatural apparitions that surround all the characters o$ the play
and a3o&e all) ha&e an e$$ect o$ pressure on those 0hose conscience hides the guilt o$ a
!urder or treacherous deeds and intrigues. In ,onson/s play this at!osphere
co!ple!ents Se(anus/ ill a!3itions and cul!inates 0ith his $all. In Shakespeare/s play)
the core concern is not the assassination itsel$) 3ut rather the e&ents that precede and
$ollo0 it) the results and i!pacts o$ the !urder on the conspirators. The ele!ents
3uilding up the supernatural character o$ the t0o plays include &arious signs) portents
and pheno!ena) either o$ natural character) 3ut attri3uted unnatural !eaning) or truly
supernatural 0ith prodigious i!plications. "s opposed to ,onson) Shakespeare $urther
ela3orates on the e!ploy!ent o$ the supernatural at!osphere and
44
uses the ele!ents o$ a drea! and a ghost. By inclusion o$ these truly dra!atic de&ices
Shakespeare achie&es signi$icantly hea&ier i!pact o$ the supernatural 3ackground.
There$ore) it is possi3le to identity a di$$erence in i!portance o$ the supernatural
en&iron!ent to the particular plays the!sel&es. The core argu!ent o$ this analysis is
that this di$$erence $ollo0s $ro! the dra!atic i!portance 0hich 0as attri3uted to the
&arious supernatural occurrences and $ro! the !ethod o$ their engage!ent. 5hile
,onson is $ocused on the !oral portrait o$ society and description o$ the plotting and
intrigues o$ Se(anus and his te2t is signi$icantly rhetorically oriented) Shakespeare
$ocuses !ore on the actual supernatural 3ackground o$ the play through 0hich he
in$luences his characters and the plot o$ the tragedy. *e success$ully strengthens the
i!pact o$ the already e!ployed supernatural pheno!ena 0ith the additional
in&ol&e!ent o$ the dra!atic $unction o$ the drea! and) !ore i!portantly) o$ -aesar/s
spirit. These additi&e dra!atic &alues o$ these apparitions enhance the already present
at!osphere o$ the play and thus distinguish it $ro! that o$ ,onson/s play. "s -lark
suggests) 8In picturing these results he IShakespeareJ has $ound the Supernatural I...J o$
the highest dra!atic &alue. ,ulius -aesar ali&e is not a character that co!!ands great
respect and ad!iration. *e is &ain) 3oast$ul) irresolute) and a prey to $latterers. But
,ulius -aesar dead is an all1i!portant in$luence in the dra!a9 6-lark 1267. -aesar/s
e&er1present spirit in$luences e&ery scene $ollo0ing his assassination. -aesar/s spirit
occupies Brutus/ !ind and puts hi! under !oral pressure and thus Brutus has to
3eco!e a0are o$ his 3ad conscience. *elen Ste0ard si!ilarly co!!ents on the ghost o$
-aesarH 8I...J this &ision is a !ost po0er$ul ele!ent in the dra!a) gi&ing to it unity o$
purpose and design 0hich 0ould other0ise 3e lacking9 6Ste0ard 747.
To conclude) 3oth Julius Caesar and e!anus* His "all include a strong ele!ent
o$ supernatural at!osphere that underlines the course o$ the respecti&e plays. *o0e&er)
the e2tent to 0hich this at!osphere is !ade use o$ is signi$icantly deter!ined 3y the
$ocus o$ the respecti&e plays. The pri!ary concern o$ ,onson/s play lies in a portrayal
and criticis! o$ !orality o$ the %o!an society. There$ore) he placed the e!phasis on
the ;uality o$ his dialogues and utterances and characters and the plot actions are
attri3uted lesser signi$icance. "uthors dealing 0ith this piece o$ dra!a o$ten state that
8the 0ork lacks any su3stantially heroic or attracti&e $igures also contri3utes to its
di$$icultyA o$ten !ore o$ a rhetorical e2ercise than a dra!a9
11
. ue to this di$$erent
11
Byrne) :eter. The Fiterary <ncyclopedia. 4 "pril.
KhttpH44000.litencyc.co!4php4s0orks.phpQrecStrueTCIS2191L
4.
$ocus) ,onson did not need to in&ol&e co!ple!entary supernatural ele!ents) as
enhance!ent o$ the unnatural at!osphere o$ his play 0as si!ply not his interest. En the
other hand) the supernatural at!osphere is a core concept o$ Shakespeare/s tragedy. *e
thoroughly ela3orates it in the 0hole course o$ the play and attri3utes it a dra!atic
$unction 3y i!ple!entation o$ the concepts o$ a drea! and a ghost) 0hich he uses to
strengthen the o!nipresent pressure on his characters.
46
!.1.3 Antony and Cleopatra #s. The Tragedy of Cleopatra
The third pair o$ dra!as to 3e discussed is The Tragedy of Cleopatra 3y Sa!uel aniel
and Antony and Cleopatra 3y Shakespeare. Both dra!as present a si!ilar story o$ lo&e)
$atalis!) and attraction 0hich had 3een se&eral ti!es ela3orated on also 3y other
authors. Both plays also dra0 their inspiration $ro! the sa!e sources) !ost i!portantly
$ro! :lutarch/s 'i$es of the Noble (ree#s and Romans.
Sa!uel aniel/s The Tragedy of Cleopatra $irst appeared in 1.94 and is 3y
so!e scholars considered as a !inor source o$ Shakespeare/s dra!a.
12
. +ro! the
perspecti&e o$ its plot) it corresponds to the second part o$ Shakespeare/s tragedy and
descri3es -leopatra/s li$e a$ter "ntony/s suicide until her o0n suicide) 3ut gi&es
-leopatra !ore space. aniel/s 0ork is oriented to0ards te2t and o$$ers thoroughly
ela3orated passages o$ te2ts 0ith &ery high le&el o$ ;uality. aniel !akes his -leopatra
!ani$est her $eeling and passions to0ards the late "ntony and conte!plate on her $ate
and $uture. The te2t o$ The Tragedy of Cleopatra includes long la!entations on her
destiny as 0ell as on the $uture o$ -leopatra/s son) 0ho! she sent a0ay in order to sa&e
hi! $ro! the rage o$ Ecta&ianus -aesar. These indi&idual passages are inlayed 3y
passages o$ chorus) 0hich) $ollo0ing the Senecan tradition) co!!ent on the actions
presented in the actual te2t and re&eal so!e $urther connotations and interconnections.
In general) aniel/s te2t does not in&ol&e !uch action and its plot is &ery si!ple. The
$ocus o$ his play lies rather in capturing -leopatra grie$ and presenting !ani$estations
o$ her $eelings) re$lections o$ the past 0ith "ntony as 0ell as the $uture 0ithout hi!.
The Tragedy of Cleopatra is truly a lo&e ro!ance) presenting a 0retched 0o!an 0ho
lost her lo&er and cannot su3due the o&er0hel!ing pressure o$ her grie$.
Shakespeare/s Antony and Cleopatra
13
0as co!pleted to0ards the end o$ 16'6
or early in 16'7. It 0as entered into the Stationers/ %egister in ?ay o$ 16'# and 0as
$irst printed in the +irst +olio o$ 1623. Its !ain source 0as) a!ong others) Tho!as
>orth/s translation o$ :lutarch/s 'ife of Mar#us Antonius. This tragedy $ollo0s the story
o$ -leopatra and ?ark "ntony $ro! the ti!e o$ the :arthian 5ar to "ntony/s and
12
"ll 3i3liographical data 0as taken $ro! the pre$ace to The Tragedie of Cleopatra 6 aniel) Sa!uel.
The Tragedie of Cleopatra. InH ?aterialien =ur @unde des Vlteren <nglishen ra!as) .1. edition) ed.
?. Federer. Fou&ainH ". Cystpruyst) 19117
13
"ll 3i3liographical data 0as taken $ro! the pre$ace to Antony and Cleopatra 6Shakespeare) 5illia!.
Antony and Cleopatra. The "rden Shakespeare) ed. ,ohn 5ilders. FondonH %outledge) 199.7
47
-leopatra/s suicide. The plot in&ol&es $re;uent changes o$ places and settings) $ights $or
po0er a!ong the triu!&irs) and also intrigues and !anipulation o$ "ntony on the part
o$ -leopatra. Shakespeare $ollo0s the story o$ his characters until "ntony/s and
-leopatra/s suicide. In co!parison to aniel/s play) Shakespeare/s tragedy has a strong
plot line and presents $re;uent actions. *o0e&er) the !editati&e aspect is present is
Shakespeare/s play as 0ell. "ntony/s $all and his tragic end are co!ple!ented 3y
conte!plations o$ the indi&idual characters on the ;uestion o$ $ate) predestination) lo&e)
po0er and !anipulation) 0hich pro&ide $or an additional di!ension to the 3asic line o$
the plot.
"s in the case o$ the t0o a3o&e !entioned pairs o$ plays) 3oth The Tragedy of
Cleopatra and Antony and Cleopatra include general re$erences to the supernatural and
$ollo0 a si!ilar pattern. Based on the &arious re$erences to %o!an gods and goddesses
or the po0er o$ stars and hea&enly 3odies) it is possi3le to disco&er a suggestion that the
!ortals are &ery !uch su3(ect to the 0ill o$ so!e higher) unnatural authority that
in$luences their actions and $ate and can steer the! in a desired direction. 5ith respect
to their doings) the !ortals can attract either the !ercy or 0rath o$ the gods and thus
e&oke either doo! or 3lessing. aniel/s tragedy contains se&eral !inor re$erences to
$ate) $ortune and the stars) along 0ith the po0ers and the i!portance attri3uted to these
ele!ents 3y the charactersH
-aesarH "nd since 0e are so 3orn that 3y our $ate)
"gainst the stor!es 0e cannot no0 3eare saile)
"nd that the 3oistrous current o$ their state
5ill 3eare do0ne all our $ortunes) and preuaileH
6The Tragedy of Cleopatra) "ct I) Scene I) 13.11397
" si!ilar re$erence can also 3e $ound in Shakespeare/s tragedyH
"ntonyH 5hen !y good stars that 0ere !y $or!er guides
*a&e e!pty le$t their or3s and shot their $ires
Into th/a3ys! o$ hell.
6Antony and Cleopatra) "ct III) Scene UIII) 1.'11.27
or
4#
"ntonyH "lack) our terrene !oon is no0 eclipsed
"nd it portends alone the $all o$ "ntony
6Antony and Cleopatra) "ct III) Scene UIII) 1.#11.97
aniel also e!ployed re$erences to predestination) 0hich co!ple!ent -leopatra/s
la!entations on her !is$ortune and the o&erall concept o$ the $ate and destinyH
-leopatraH But &&hat kno0 I i$ th/heauens haue decreed)
"nd that the sinnes o$ <gypt haue deseru/d
The :tole!ies should $aile) and none succeed)
"nd that !y 0eakenes 0as thereto reseru/d)
That I should 3ring con$usion to !y state I...J
6The Tragedy of Cleopatra) "ct II) Scene I) 4.'14.47
or
-leopatraH Thus !ust it 3e) earth aske not heuen 0hy.
6The Tragedy of Cleopatra) "ct III) Scene I) #677
In general) aniel/s play is $ull o$ su3tle re$erences and nuances regarding hu!an $ate.
These conte!plations are o!nipresent in -leopatra/s utterances and thoughts and are
re$lected in the speeches o$ the -horus. Thus) the !ost i!portant e2planation o$ the
in$luence o$ destiny and the gods on the e&eryday li$e o$ the !ortals are not included in
the te2t itsel$) 3ut aniel incorporated the! into the utterances o$ the -horus 0hich
stand alongside the te2t. aniel/s use o$ the -horus $ollo0s a Senecan !odel. The
$unction o$ the -horus is to present co!!entaries on the plot as 0ell as related aspects
o$ the play. In respect to the Supernatural) the !ost rele&ant is the $ollo0ing e2cerpt o$
the -horus te2t at the end o$ "ct II 0hich addresses the goddess >e!esis 8Sterne) and
i!perious9) 8aughter o$ (ustice) !ost seuere9H
I...J %e&ersing th/order nature set)
Thou giu/st thy all con$ounding doo!e)
5hich none can kno0 3e$ore it co!e.
Th/ineuita3le destenie)
5hich neither 0it nor strength can let)
+ast chain/d &nto necessity)
49
In !ortall things doth order so)
Th/alternate course o$ 0eale or 0oe.
Eh ho0 the po0ers o$ heauen doe play
5ith trauailed !ortalityH
I...J "nd 0ith the ruine o$ their $all)
<2tinguish people) state and all.
I...J E 0hy should th/heauens us include)
5ithin the co!passe o$ their $all)
5ho o$ the!selues procured allQ
Er doe the gods in close decree)
Eccasion take ho0 to e2trude
?an $ro! the earth 0ith crueltieQ
"h no) the gods are euer iust)
Eur $aults e2cuse their rigid !ust.
6The Tragedy of Cleopatra) "ct III) 71.176'7
"lthough aniel/s play in&ol&es nu!erous re$erences to the concepts o$ $ate and
predestination) the core o$ this te2t still lies in its conte!plati&e character and the
re$lections o$ -leopatra/s !is$ortune and sorro0.
+ro! the a3o&e !entioned e2cerpts it is o3&ious that in aniel/s play) the
re$erences discussed are con&eyed through the te2t) &ia the particular 0ords and
e2pressions o$ the -horus as 0ell as -leopatra/s utterances. En the other hand)
Shakespeare/s dra!a does not in&ol&e that !any te2tual re$erences to this issue) as the
$ocus lies on a di$$erent le&el 6or di!ension7. There is an i!portant shi$t in respect to
aniel/s play as 0ell as the pre&iously discussed pairs o$ dra!as. Thus) the
!ani$estation o$ the supernatural aspect is shi$ted $ro! the &isi3le to the in&isi3le le&el
or !ore precisely $ro! the outer to inner sphere. "ll the a3o&e pre&iously discussed
plays in&ol&e so!e clearly !ani$ested or deli!ited $or! o$ the supernatural) to 0hich
the characters could react or 0hich they could 3e re$lected in their actions or utterances)
or te2tual re$erences. In the case o$ Antony and Cleopatra) this su3ordination to a higher
po0er is co!ple!ented 3y the inner 0orld o$ the character as 0ell their nature. Thus)
the concept o$ su3ordination and predestination in this tragedy o$ Shakespeare is
.'
pictured in respect to the inner nature o$ the characters. -leopatra is portrayed as a
!anipulati&e character that enchants "ntony 0ith her spell o$ 3eauty) attraction and
erotic. "dditionally) in !any respects she e!3odies the re$erences to the supernatural
po0ers and ele!ents in$luencing the li&es o$ hu!an present in aniel/s play. She
in$luences hi! so !uch that "ntony is al0ays attracted to return to her to <gypt and to
$orget a3out his o3ligations. "lso other characters o$ the play attri3ute her certain
8unnatural9 a3ilities. "part $ro! her $e!inine skills and erotic !agnetis! 0ith 0hich
she dra0s "ntony and as ?agoulias says 8the play keeps ali&e a co!ple!entary
assurance that a po0er 0orks through her 0hich is also) in so!e sense) a $ate. She is $or
e&eryone an Benchantress/) a B$airy/) a B0itch/) a Bchar!/) a Bspell/) and she !o&es) e&en
$or the %o!ans) in an a!3ience o$ suggestion that see!s to gi&e these ter!s a reach
3eyond their con&entional hori=ons o$ gallantry and erotic praise.9
14
"ntony) on the
other hand) is pictured as the one 3eing !anipulated. -leopatra/s po0er and in$luence
!akes hi! change his decisions and plans and "ntony is go&erned 3y her in !any
respects. Shakespeare suggests "ntony/s nature in "ct II) Scene III) in "ntony/s
dialogue 0ith the SoothsayerH
"ntonyH Say to !e)
5hose $ortunes shall rise higher) -aesar/s or !ineQ
SoothsayerH -aesar/s.
There$ore) E "ntony) stay not 3y his side.
Thy dae!on N that thy spirit 0hich keeps thee N is
>o3le) courageous) high un!atcha3le)
5here -aesar/s is not. But near hi!) thy angel
Beco!es a$eard) as 3eing o/&erpo0eredA there$ore
?ake space enough 3et0een you.
"ntony Speak this no !ore.
Soothsayer I...J i$ thou dost play 0ith hi! at any ga!e)
Thou art sure to loseA and o$ that natural luck
*e 3eat thee Bagainst the odds.
14
?agoulias) ?ichael) ed. 8"ntony "nd -leopatra 6Dol. 277 N Introduction9. InH Shakespearean
-riticis!. Dol. 27. Gale -engage) 199.. e>otes.co!. 2''6. 2# "pril 2''9
KhttpH44000.enotes.co!4shakespearean1criticis!4antony1cleopatra1&ol127L
.1
I...J I say again) thy spirit
Is all a$raid to go&ern thee near hi!A
I...J
6Antony and Cleopatra) "ct II) Scene III) 141277
"t $irst sight) this dialogue presents a prodigious !essage 0ithout any additional
!eaning than that o$ "ntony/s e2pected $ailure. *o0e&er) 3et0een the lines
Shakespeare also suggests the dual nature o$ a !an. This concepts propose that on one
hand) there is the !ortal physical 3ody that decays a$ter the death and on the other there
is the i!!ortal soul) the spirit or the 8genius9 o$ a !an 6as Ste0ard suggests7. Ste0ard
holds that 8the 0ords genius and de!on 6in their original classic sense o$ o&er1soul7)
angel and spirit are used &ariously to e2press the !ysterious part o$ our 3eing I...J9
6Ste0ard 6'7. "longside 0ith Ste0ard/s argu!ent) the a3o&e !entioned utterance
discloses the nature o$ "ntony/s and -aesar/s spirit. "ntony/s spirit is spoken o$ in
no3le ter!s and designed as superior to that o$ -aesar. En the other hand) in respect to
-aesar/s spirit Shakespeare suggests his e&il character and the po0er and in$luence it is
a3le to e2ert o&er "ntony. This utterance also i!plies that "ntony/s $uture is to a
considera3le e2tent in$luenced 3y his nature N his spirit N 0hich) in contrast to the e&il
spirit o$ -aesar has no prospects o$ &ictory or success. This scene is &ery i!portant $or
perception o$ the $urther de&elop!ent o$ the play) as it) to a certain degree) changes the
interpretation o$ the su3se;uent plot e&ents. +ollo0ing the introduction o$ the concept
o$ the dual nature o$ !en in this dialogue) it is possi3le to consider all the su3se;uent
actions and e&ents $ro! this perspecti&e. There$ore) all the &ictories or $ailures o$
-aesar and "ntony can 3e interpreted as results o$ their spirits. -aesar/s treacherous
3eha&iour can 3e seen in the light o$ the e&il nature o$ his spirit and si!ilarly "ntony/s
0eakness and his tendencies to su3ordination can 3e regarded as i!plying $ro! his
good 6and nai&e and !anipulati&e7 nature. +ro! this &ery scene on0ards) Shakespeare/s
tragedy is underlain 3y a su3tle distinction 3et0een Bgood/ and Be&il/ spirit hidden in
e&ery !an) 0hich steers the actions and 3eha&iour o$ the characters. Thus) the
characters o$ Shakespeare/s tragedy are not su3(ect to the in$luence o$ stars) gods)
planets or other supernatural ele!ents and pheno!ena) 3ut rather to the in$luence o$ the
inner nature) the spirit) 0hich hides in the characters the!sel&es.
This concept o$ an Binner supernatural 0orld/) 0hich can 3e $ound in e&ery !an)
is co!ple!ented 3y another scene o$ Antony and Cleopatra. The scene in "ct II) 0hich
.2
precedes the $inal 3attle a!ong the triu!&irs) has also a strea!ing e$$ect on the
su3se;uent e&ents o$ the plot. The $ollo0ing lines attri3ute the e&ening preceding the
deter!inati&e 3attle a di$$erent di!ension) 0hich also suggests that !en/s actions can
3e in$luenced 3y so!ething out o$ their reachH
2 SoldierH :eaceP 5hat noiseQ
1 SoldierH Fist) listP
2 SoldierH *arkP
1 SoldierH ?usic) iMth/ air.
3 SoldierH Cnder the earth.
4 SoldierH It signs 0ell) does it notQ
3 SoldierH >o.
1 SoldierH :eace) I sayP 5hat should this !eanQ
2 SoldierH BTis the god *ercules 0ho! "ntony lo&ed
>o0 lea&es hi!.
6Antony and Cleopatra) "ct III) Scene UUII) 131227
"s Sara ?unson eats suggestsH 8The supernatural sounds issuing $ro! the space
3eneath the !ain stage thus pro&ide "ntony and -leopatra 0ith an unsettling and
prognosticatory prologue to play/s $inal action.9
1.
5ithout this particular scene) the
su3se;uent e&ents 0ould pro3a3ly ha&e a di$$erent i!pact on the audience. ue to this
additional le&el o$ supernatural control or in$luence o&er the hu!an actions and $ates)
the $ollo0ing scenes lea&e !ore $atalistic i!pression and thus the su3se;uent
de&elop!ent o$ the course o$ the play can e2ert a greater in$luence on the audience and
readers. This scene !ay also suggest the Binner/ source o$ the supernatural in$luence.
Si!ilarly to the pre&iously discussed dialogue 3et0een "ntony and the Soothsayer) the
po0er does not co!e $ro! gods or stars) i.e. $ro! a3o&e) 3ut $ro! 3eneath) i.e. $ro! an
inner di!ension.
Based on the a3o&e !entioned e2a!ples and discussion) it can 3e concluded that
si!ilarly to the pre&iously discussed plays) the 3asic di$$erence 3et0een the t0o dra!as
presented in respect to the supernatural lies in its respecti&e use 3y the authors and the
i!portance attri3uted to the ele!ents o$ the supernatural. -o!pared to the 0orks
1.
eats) S. ?. "ntony and -leopatraH ne0 critical essays. %outledge) 2''.. 1. "pril 2''9. "&aila3le at
Google BooksH KhttpH443ooks.google.co!4L
.3
discussed pre&iously) these dra!as do not include such high nu!3er and 0ide range o$
&arious supernatural $eatures or their &isi3le !ani$estation and presence) there$ore it is
not that easy to identi$y and re&eal the presence o$ the supernatural in the te2ts)
particularly in Shakespeare/s tragedy. The di$$erence 3et0een aniel/s and
Shakespeare/s te2t is) again) deter!ined 3y the di$$erent $ocuses o$ the plays. 5hereas
aniel concentrates on portrayal o$ -leopatra/s grie$ and su$$ering) 0hich he !ani$ests
in $or! o$ her speeches and !onologues) Shakespeare concentrate on a su3tle notion o$
deter!inis! in respect to the dou3le nature o$ !en and he !akes $ine !ani$estations o$
the spirits o$ his characters) deter!ining their $urther actions. The in$luence o$ the
supernatural on the characters in aniel/s play thus co!es $ro! Ba3o&e/ as it is !ostly
!ani$ested 3y re$erences to stars) gods and $ate. En the other hand) Shakespeare/s
deter!inis! co!es $ro! the Binside/) $ro! the supernatural that is hidden 0ithin his
characters and is e!ployed 3e !eans o$ their spirits) their nature. "lthough aniel
in&ol&ed si!ilar concepts into his tragedy) Shakespeare co!ple!ents such ele!ents 3y
inclusion o$ the a3o&e discussed t0o scenes 0hich con&ey i!portant dra!atic
$unctions. The po0er 0hich the supernatural in ShakespeareMs tragedy e2erts o&er the
hu!ans is neither e2plicit nor direct) 3ut is skil$ully !ani$ested in the a3o&e !entioned
e2a!ples. "s a&id Be&ington state) 8the !oti$ o$ supernatural control helped shape a
pattern o$ $atalis! $or the play9.
16
The supernatural ele!ents) 0hich are an integral part
o$ Shakespeare/s tragedy) 3ring a3out !ore signi$icant dra!atic $unctions than those in
,onson/s play) 0here the !ain re$erences to so!e supernatural in$luence is pro&ided 3y
!eans o$ the chorus standing apart $ro! the !ain te2t.
16
Shakespeare) 5illia!. Antony and Cleopatra, <d. a&id ?. Be&ington. -a!3ridge Cni&ersity :ress)
2''.. "&aila3le at Google BooksH KhttpH443ooks.google.co!4L
.4
$. Conclusion
The ai! o$ this thesis 0as to present Shakespeare/s use o$ supernatural ele!ents in his
plays $ro! a perspecti&e o$ the 0hole co!position o$ the particular play and in
consideration o$ the socio1cultural 3ackground and the literary and dra!atic traditions
$ro! his era. The o3(ecti&e 0as not to recapitulate the nu!erous $indings $ro! already
a&aila3le pu3lications) 3ut instead o$ discussing the particular re$erences to supernatural
pheno!ena and the 0ays o$ their interpretation) to rather consider the in&ol&e!ent o$
the supernatural in respect to the $ocus o$ the author. Shakespeare/s plays 0ere thus
co!pared to plays 3y di$$erent authors) 0hich share 0ith the Shakespearean plays a
certain a!ount o$ si!ilarities. <2istence o$ certain shared ele!ents and aspects 6plot)
characters) and a B!essage/7 !ade it possi3le to discuss the role and i!portance o$
supernatural $eatures 0ithin the indi&idual pairs o$ plays.
The analyses i!ply that each o$ the respecti&e authors $ocussed on di$$erent
aspects) 0hich he attri3uted to his play. The author o$ the anony!ous play chose to
present an historical account o$ %ichard/s sei=e o$ po0er and to descri3e the intrigues
that helped hi! to 3eco!e the @ing. ,onson pre$erred to gi&e a !oral state!ent a3out
the !oral corruption o$ the inha3itants o$ %o!e) 0hich he !ani$ested pri!arily in the
rhetorical ;ualities and per$ections o$ his dialogues and utterances. "nd $inally aniel
3uilt up his Tragedy of Cleopatra on the e!otional la!entations and conte!plations o$
0retched -leopatra. "dditionally to their respecti&e $ocuses) each o$ these three authors
also e!ployed in their plays so!e e2tent o$ supernatural in$luence. *o0e&er) 3eing it
(ust !ere re$erences in the anony!ous play) supernatural apparitions in e!anus or
suggestions o$ su3ordination o$ people to supernatural in$luence) such re$erences are) in
respect to the !ain $ocus o$ the play) only !arginal and their inclusion does not
signi$icantly in$luence or alter the already e2isting course o$ the play.
En the other hand) the i!portance and !eaning o$ the supernatural ele!ents
used in Shakespeare/s plays is di$$erent $ro! their counterparts. In each o$ the three
plays presented) Shakespeare attri3uted the supernatural a $unction) 0hich is ai!ed at
enhancing the presented $ocus o$ the play. In Richard III Shakespeare $ocuses on the
character o$ %ichard as 0ell on the other &illains o$ the plot) 0hich are con$ronted 0ith
the !oral pressure con&eyed 3y prophetical signs) e2erted through a drea! and
e!ployed 3y the apparitions o$ ghosts o$ the people !urdered. <ach o$ these apparitions
..
constitutes a part o$ the conscience o$ the respecti&e &illain. In Julius Caesar
Shakespeare introduces a 0hole range o$ supernatural $eatures) 0hich together $or! a
co!ple2 and ela3orated supernatural 3ackground. This at!osphere o$ unnatural signs
and apparitions $unctions as a catalyst $or the actions o$ the characters and as !eans o$
e2erting a pressure and in$luence upon the!. "nd $inally in the third play) in Antony
and Cleopatra* Shakespeare !o&es on a di$$erent le&el) 3ut he portrays his !ain
characters so that it is possi3le to sense the dou3le nature o$ the indi&iduals) in
particular their spirit) 0hich is a3le to steer the actions o$ the characters.
+ro! the a3o&e included recapitulation i!plies that the use o$ the supernatural
in plays 3y Shakespeare) and not only 3y hi!) needs to 3e considered in 3roader
conte2t) not only in respect to the particular re$erences the!sel&es. In particular) it is
necessary to consider the di$$erence 3et0een the use o$ the supernatural as a !ere
re$erence to cultural traditions and the directed e!ploy!ent o$ supernatural ele!ents
0ith attri3uted dra!atic $unctions. In this respect) the analyses de!onstrated that
Shakespeare/s use o$ the supernatural has an i!portant attri3ute N that o$ a dra!atic
de&ice. In his plays he success$ully di$$erentiates 3et0een the re$lections o$ popular
3elie$s and popular traditions o$ that ti!e society and use o$ the supernatural as a
dra!atic tool) 0hich helps hi! to enhance his play and gi&e it an added &alue.
Shakespeare does not use the supernatural ele!ents 0ith their attri3uted
supernatural $unctions and characteristics) 3ut he actually con&erts their !eaning and
$unctions to an ordinary) Bnatural/ le&el. *is ghosts) drea!s and other supernatural
apparitions introduce to the respecti&e plays rather &ery natural and co!!on aspects N
in a !a(ority o$ cases concepts o$ conscience and !orality.
1
.6
%. &orks Cited and Consulted
'riary Sources
aniel) Sa!uel. The Tragedie of Cleopatra. InH ?aterialien =ur @unde des Vlteren
<nglishen ra!as) .1. edition) ed. ?. Federer. Fou&ainH ". Cystpruyst) 1911.
,onson) Ben. e!anus. His "all. Bi3lioBa=aar) FF-) 2''6. "&aila3le at Google BooksH
KhttpH443ooks.google.co!4L
Shakespeare) 5illia!. Antony and Cleopatra. The "rden Shakespeare) ed. ,ohn
5ilders. FondonH %outledge) 199..
Shakespeare) 5illia!. /ing Richard III. The "rden Shakespeare) ed. "ntony
*a!!ond. FondonH %outledge) 1994.
Shakespeare) 5illia!. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. <d. >or!an Sanders.
*ar!onds0orthH :enguin Books) 1967.
True Tragedy of Richard III. 1.94. 22
nd
+e3ruary 2''9.
KhttpH44000.eli=a3ethanauthors.co!4truetragedy'1.ht!L
Secondary Sources(
Boyer) -larence Dalentine. The 0illain as Hero in )li1abethan Tragedy. FondonH
%outledge)1#.2.
-lark) -u!3erland. ha#espeare and the upernatural. FondonH 5illia!s T >orgate)
Ftd.) 1931.
Gi3son) ,ohn :aul Ste0art %. ha#espeares 2se of the upernatural. -a!3ridgeH
eighton) Bell T -o.) 19'#.
Fucas) +rank Faurence. eneca and )li1abethan Tragedy. -a!3ridge Cni&ersity :ress)
Fondon) 1922.
.7
@iernan) :auline. ha#espeares Theory of Drama. -a!3ridge Cni&ersity :ress)
Fondon) 1996.
?endl) %o3ert 5illia! Sigis!und. Re$elation in ha#espeare. FondonH ,ohn -alder)
1964.
Schelling) +eli2 <!!anuel. ha#espeare and 3Demi4cience5. E2$ord Cni&ersity
press) 1927.
Spens) ,anet. )li1abethan Drama. FondonH ?ethuen T -o. Ftd. 1922
Ste0art) *elen *. The upernatural in ha#espeare. FondonH Euseley) 19'#.
Tho!as) @eith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. >e0 RorkH -harles Scri3nerMs Sons)
1971.
5ilson) ,ohn o&er. %hat Happens in Hamlet. -a!3ridge Cni&ersity :ress) 19.6.
Internet Sources
"lchin) F.@. <li=a3ethan <ra. 2. +e3ruary 2''9.
KhttpH44000.eli=a3ethan1era.org.uk4eli=a3ethan10itchcra$t1and10itches.ht!L
Byrne) :eter. The Fiterary <ncyclopedia,
KhttpH44000.litencyc.co!4php4s0orks.phpQrecStrueTCIS2191L
eats) S. ?. Antony and Cleopatra. ne6 critical essays. %outledge) 2''.. "&aila3le at
Google BooksH KhttpH443ooks.google.co!4L
?agoulias) ?ichael) ed. 8"ntony "nd -leopatra 6Dol. 277 N Introduction9. InH
ha#espearean Criticism. Dol. 27. Gale -engage) 199.. e>otes.co!. 2''6. 2#
"pril 2''9 KhttpH44000.enotes.co!4shakespearean1criticis!4
antony1cleopatra1&ol127L
.#
?arlo0e) -hristopher. Doctor "austus. <d. Syl&an Barnet. Signet -lassic) 2''1.
"&aila3le at Google BooksH KhttpH443ooks.google.co!L
:ierson) <ric. 1' ?arch 2''9. KhttpH44elsinore.ucsc.edu4Ghost4ghost.ht!lL
Shakespeare) 5illia!. Antony and Cleopatra, <d. a&id ?. Be&ington. -a!3ridge
Cni&ersity :ress) 2''.. "&aila3le at Google BooksH KhttpH443ooks.google.co!4L
Thayer.5.:. :lutarch) The :arallel Fi&es. 27 ?arch 2''9
KhttpH44penelope.uchicago.edu4Thayer4<4%o!an4Te2ts4:lutarch4Fi&es4Introducti
onW.ht!lL
.9
6'
61