Shakespeare on the Mystery of Love
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“It hath no bottom” and is “beyond beyond”: Shakespeare on the Mystery of Love by Marilyn Dorothy Simon A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate English Department University of Toronto © Copyright by Marilyn Dorothy Simon (2016) “It hath no bottom” and is “beyond beyond”: Shakespeare on the Mystery of Love Doctor of Philosophy Marilyn Dorothy Simon Department of English University of Toronto 2016 Abstract This thesis examines how Shakespeare represents love. Love is resistant to definition because its experience is entirely subjective, yet Shakespeare does not retreat from any attempt to represent selfless love, which contrasts to the more easily comprehended mechanisms and effects of desire. Shakespeare’s works suggest that love can be both eros and agape at the same time. The experience of being in love constitutes one’s subjectivity: these works show that to know oneself is to know what is worth dying for, and in this regard love is stronger than death. This thesis argues that Shakespeare views love as a mystery, yet also as something profoundly real and revolutionary. Shakespeare intersects Christianity’s belief in the mystery of divine love with the experience of romantic and sexual love; he uses theology and the experiences of religious faith to express the possibilities of secular love. Shakespeare makes the sacred secular: he reinvents spiritual love as a human experience, and in turn his works elevate human love and characterize it as a religious experience. Further, these texts suggest that secular love can be an access point for the experience of divine love; that is, human love participates in the divine mystery of God’s love. The transformative possibilities that accompany moments of love are communicated through the mystery of poetry and theatrical performance: it is through artifice and illusion that we are able to understand the experience and meaning of love. In his construction of subjectivity, Shakespeare’s texts suggest that radical selflessness is paradoxically the pathway to becoming most fully the self. This thesis considers both Shakespeare’s dramatic works and his poetry. This dissertation contextualizes Shakespeare’s writing within the larger Christian culture of early modern England and also considers contemporary theory and criticism. The mysteries of love, of faith, and of the possibilities of the imagination do not merely intersect in Shakespeare’s works; these ideas gain meaning and are understood precisely through their intersections. ii Acknowledgments A thesis project is a courageous undertaking, and since I alone am not that brave, this project has only been successful because of the support and encouragement of friends, family, and faculty. First of all, I would like to thank Jill Levenson who, although she did not get to see this project through to its completion, had faith in the idea from the start and was instrumental in guiding the thesis through its muddy middle years. I would also like thank David Galbraith for taking the helm in the eleventh hour and working with me through the final revisions and edits. And I would like to thank Paul Stevens, of course, whose exceptionally clear way of seeing assisted me in seeing the clarity of my own thoughts. I would like to thank Ryan Simon for agreeing to join me in Toronto as I began this degree; that in itself was an act of generosity and bravery for which I will forever be grateful. To my many friends in Toronto who not only encouraged me with feelings of solidarity and determination, but who also hosted me as I returned to the city for meetings, I thank you, most particularly Lara Okihiro, Jacqueline Wylde, Marlee Ross, and Gretchn Hitt. And a special thank you to Jenny O’Kell, who patiently walked me through the formatting hiccups and frustrations that accompanied the final days of this project. Thank you to John Fedoruk, who fixed, and then broke, and then fixed again my computer so that I could write this project on a reliable machine. And a big thank you to Angela Earl, whose insights into my project helped me to see what I was saying. To my two daughters, Natasha and Bianca, I am sorry that I have so busy with writing and that your earliest memories will include “Mama working on Shakespeare,” but I think that one day you will be proud of my accomplishment, even though you do not understand it now. I did this for you: be brave, girls, and find the courage to start a project and find the strength to finish it. And finally, to my parents, Victor and Elvira Lysack, who not only supported me emotionally through my years of study, but financially and pragmatically as well: you picked up the slack in childcare when I could not be there myself to mind the little ones, and you kept me from abject poverty while I toiled and toiled in study. Mom and Dad, this project is for you. This dissertation was generously funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………………..iii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………iv 1 Introduction “The bottom of God’s secrets”: The Transcendent Moment in Shakespeare...1 1.1 Spiritual Transcendence, Falling in Love, and the Possibilities of Theatre……………1 1.2 Rational Contradiction: Reason, Emotion, and Subjectivity………………………….18 1.3 Love, Self-Shattering, and Death……………………………………………………...23 1.4 Joy: The Release of Self in the Fullness of Love……………………………………...31 1.5 Chapter Summary……………………………………………………………………...35 2 “Mutual render”: Love and Subjective Fullness and Loss in Sonnets 125 and 126……….38 2.1 The Subject is the Subject…………………………….……………………………….38 2.2 Sonnet 125: Love and Sacrifice………………………………………………………..45 2.3 Sonnet 126: Love and Eternity………………………………………………………...54 2.4 The Dark Lady: Lover Versus Will…………………………………………………....62 3 “Love-devouring death”: Love and Spirituality in Romeo and Juliet……………………...70 3.1 Eros and Agape……………………………………………………………………..….70 3.2 “Either was the other’s mine”: The Phoenix and Turtle……………………………….73 3.3 “Star-crossed lovers take their life”: Romeo, Juliet, and Subjectivity…………………85 3.4 “Love-devouring death” or Love Devours Death?........................................................101 3.5 “As they kiss consume”: Love as the Authentic Act………………………………….114 4 “Less without and more within”: Love, Death, and Redemption in Cymbeline…………...128 4.1 Romance and the Impossible………………………………………………………….128 4.2 “Such stuff within”: Inwardness, Selflessness, and Love……………………………..131 4.3 “Beyond beyond”: Grace, Redemption, and the Christian Advent…………………....145 4.4 “The powers above”: Reality, Fantasy, and Theatre…………………………………..159 5 Conclusion Towards King Lear and Seeing Feelingly…………………………………….168 Works Consulted………………………………………………………………………………..181 iv 1 Introduction “The Bottom of God’s Secrets”: The Transcendent Moment in Shakespeare 1.1 Spiritual Transcendence, Falling in Love, and the Possibilities of Theatre Perhaps the most well known review of A Midsummer’s Night Dream belongs to Samuel Pepys: “we saw Midsummer Night’s Dream,” he writes, “which I had never seen before, nor shall ever again, for it is the most insipid ridiculous play that ever I saw in my life” (208). Clearly Pepys did not see in this play any exploration of religious or philosophical issues; instead, his remark broadcasts that he saw it as a silly and utterly trivial play. This view of A Midsummer’s Night Dream as a frivolous play that teeters on the edge of madness is a sentiment echoed, as Peter Holland points out, by the Swiss weaver Ulrich Braker, who in 1780 wrote: “‘I don’t want to run down your dream, but I just can’t make it out. The whole tone of the piece doesn’t appeal to me. […] A certain Theseus, a certain Lysander, every fairy in fact, is busy spouting his own wooden verses” (qtd. in Holland, “Introduction” 1). Based on these comments, this play seems to have little or nothing to do with anything serious, in either religion or philosophy. The principal characters, after all, are concerned only with their love triangle, the fairy Robin with his mischief, and the mechanicals with their comic rendition of a classic tragic love-story. The plot may indeed be ridiculous, yet the play has much in it that reveals how Shakespeare thought about and responded to philosophical and theological issues of the early modern period. Of special interest to my project is how the play treats biblical echoes and allusions, the most famous of which is perhaps Bottom’s reaction to his fantastic encounter with the fairy queen: God’s my life! Stolen hence, and left me asleep? – I have had a most rare vision. I have had a dream past the wit of man to say what dream it was. Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream. Methought I was – there is no man can tell what. Methought I was, and methought I had – but man is but a patched fool if he will offer to say 1 2 what methought I had. The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report, what my dream was. I will get Peter Quince to write a ballad of this dream. It shall be called “Bottom’s Dream,” because it hath no bottom, and I will sing it in the latter end of a play, before the Duke. Peradventure, to make it the more gracious, I shall sing it at her death. (4.1.203-219) This passage alludes to 1 Corinthians 2:9-10, verses in which Paul describes the joys that God has prepared for each Christian believer: “The things which eye hathe not sene, nether eare hathe heard, nether came into man’s heart, are, which God hathe prepared for those that love him.