Anticipation and Foreboding in Shakespearean Drama. Dallas Lynn Lacy Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1968 Anticipation and Foreboding in Shakespearean Drama. Dallas Lynn Lacy Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Lacy, Dallas Lynn, "Anticipation and Foreboding in Shakespearean Drama." (1968). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 1405. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/1405 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 68-10,747 LACY, Dallas Lynn, 1935- ANTICIPATION AND FOREBODING IN SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Ph.D„ 1968 Language and Literature, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ANTICIPATION AND FOREBODING IN SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of English by Dallas Lynn Lacy B. A., Hardin-Simmons University, 1957 M. A.} North Texas State University, 1961 January, 1968 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I . INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1 II. HISTORIES .......................................................................................... 9 1, 2, and 3 Henry V I............................................................. 10 Richard I I I ................................................................................. 16 King J o h n....................................................... .......................... 29 R ichard I I ..................................................... 33 .,___. ... i.a n d 2 Henry IV 45 III. TRAGEDIES........................................................................................... 57 Titus Andronicus............................... 58 Romeo and J u l i e t.................................................................... 63 Julius Caesar .......................................................... 73 Troilus and Cressida ............................................. 84 H a m l e t .......................................................................................... 90 O t h e l l o .......................................................................................... 104 King L e a r..................................................................................... 116 Timon of A thens..................................................... 129 Macbeth ........................................................................ 132 Antony and C leopatra.......................................................... 147 * i i CHAPTER PAGE IV. COMEDIES..................................................................................... 155 Early Comedies....................................................................... 156 Romantic Comedies ................................................................... 155 Dark Comedies............................................................................ 157 Tragi-comedies........................................... 171 V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 178 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................ 184 i i i ABSTRACT This study of anticipation and foreboding in Shakespeare's plays examines his use of the various preparatory devices and traces his de veloping mastery of these dramatic techniques. In examining the artis tic discipline involved in the use of these techniques, the study rein forces our awareness, and provides additional evidence, of the fact that Shakespeare was a conscious dramatic a rtist whose technique was controlled and deliberate. Throughout his plays, Shakespeare takes special care to prepare the audience for certain events and effects. His habit is to advise us before rather than after the event. Foreshadowing is comprised of two elements, anticipation and foreboding. Anticipation, the more obvious of the two, is prophetic in nature, usually giving the exact delineation of the events which will follow. Foreboding, on the other hand, is vague and suggestive rather than explicit. It does not directly announce; it merely hints at coming events. Instead of standing alone like passages of antici pation, the intimations of foreboding are more subtly functional throughout the drama. Whereas the main purpose of anticipation is to announce specific outcomes, the primary purpose of foreboding is to create an appropriate tragic atmosphere which will lead the audience to expect and to acquiesce in the tragic conclusion. For the purposes of discussion -Shakespeare's plays are broken down into the three traditional categories, histories, tragedies, and comedies. Within each major category the plays are discussed in the iv V chronological order in which they were written. Because of the greater complexity of the histories and tragedies, these dramas are discussed separately, with the technique of foreshadowing considered within the framework of the individual play. In these plays foreshadowing becomes progressively so closely interrelated with other aspects of the drama, such as character, atmosphere, tone, and image association, that a mere listing of anticipatory passages would be ineffective. The comedies, however, because of their relative lack of foreshadowing, are discussed in four major categories. One of the major results of this study is to show Shakespeare's developing artistry. In the earliest histories foreshadowing is lim ited primarily to the traditional conventions of pre-Shakespearean drama, such as omens and prophecies' and anticipation through direct statement in soliloquy. In later histories and in the tragedies, how ever, more complex, subtle, and integral foreshadowing replaces the explicit anticipation of the earlier plays. ' In the tragedies which were written in Shakespeare's maturity, foreshadowing becomes less a separable element and becomes more interwoven into the total structure of the drama. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Shakespeare's practice of foreshadowing events is one aspect of his dramatic technique which has not previously received sufficient examination. Such a weakness in Shakespearean criticism was pointed out by Wolfgang Clemen in 1953,1 and since then no connected study of Shakespeare's use of such techniques has preceded the present one. It is hoped, then, that the present work helps to fill a gap in Shakespear ean criticism . There are many reasons why anticipation and foreboding are impor tant to the drama. Dumas fils once characterized drama as "the art of n preparations." Perhaps preparation is the most important element in drama, for without it there can be no drama. It is impossible to study the growth of a play without giving incessant attentionto preparation— "to the previous arrangement of circumstance, the previous painting of character, even to the previous placing of properties, all of which have so much to do with the reasonableness of the ensuing actions and reactions." The primary importance of anticipation and foreboding lies in the nature of tragedy itself. There are two possibilities for Wolfgang H. Clemen, "Anticipation and Foreboding in Shake speare's Early H istories," Shakespeare Survey. VI (1953), 25. ^rank Hurbert O'Hara and Marquerite Harmon Bro, A Handbook of Drama (New York, 1938), p. 159. 3Ibid., p. 159. 1 2 each dramatist to choose between in establishing his desired dramatic effect. First, he may choose to make the outcome uncertain, thus rely ing upon surprise as the chief vehicle for dramatic effect. This, of course, is the method chosen by most writers of mystery stories, come dies, and adventure stories. Second, he may choose to make the outcome inevitable from the events and statements which have gone before. Here "the suspense resides in the audience's frightened anticipation, in the 4 question of when." Shakespeare, like most great dramatists, chose the second method. Samuel T aylor C o lerid g e, among th e f i r s t to comment on Shakespeare's dramatic method, regarded Shakespeare's use of expecta tion far superior to the use of the element of surprise: "As the feel ing with which we startle at a shooting star compared with that of watching the sunrise at a preestablished moment, such and so low is surprise compared with expectation."5 A recent critic of Shakespeare, H. B. Charlton, also points to the importance of expectation in tragedy: "That is, indeed, the fundamental note of tragedy, a sense conjured in us . convincing us that the action we are watching must sweep irre sistibly to its inevitable end."6 Anticipation and foreboding prevent too strong an element of surprise in a tragedy and thus help to estab lish that sense of inevitability and expectation so necessary to high tragedy. Because of the lack of surprise in Shakespearean drama, the law of causality, not chance, is shown to rule in the world of human % illiam .Flint Thrall and Addison Hibbard, A Handbook to Litera ture (New York, 1960), p. 477. 5Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Best