TRB ROLE OF FUNCTIONAL RHETORIC IN THE DBVELOFNBNT OP FOUR SHAKESPEAREAN VILLAINS! AARON, RICHARD III, RBOAN, AND lAGO

by

RUTH WAOB JOHNSON. B,A.

A THESIS IN ENGLISH SulNBitted to tht Graduate Faculty of Texas T^ohnologioal Collage in I^Burtial Pulfillmant of thm Requirmenta for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

August, 1953 T3

^'>'^7 TABLE OP CONTENTS Cop. 'i- Page I. FUNCTIONAL RHETORIC: HISTORY AND DEFINITION . 1 II. AARON THE MOOR 21 III. RICHARD III 38 IV. REGAN 59 V. lAQO 75 CONCLUSIONS 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY 100

11 CHAPTER I FUNCTIONAL RHETORICt HISTORY AND DEFINITION

Shakespeare's extraordinary dramatic power, vitality, and expressive language are due "in part to his genius, in part to the fact that the unsettled linguistic forms of his age promoted to an unusual degree the spirit of free crea- M1 tiveness, and in part to the theory of composition pre­ vailing in the Elizabethan age. It is this last element which differentiates Elizabethan rhetoric from the language patterns of today; difference in habits of thought and in methods of developing a tho\ight result in a corresponding difference in expression. The Renaissance theory of compo­ sition was characterized by the use of formal logic and 2 rhetoric; generally ours is not. A first and fundamental principle towards ascertain­ ing the part which rhetoric played in the effective delinea­ tion of villainous character development must be an under­ standing of the role of rhetoric in the verse, prose, and drama of the period. Many critics have bandied the word about until it has acquired a pejorative connotation; it has been said that Shakespeare's earlier chronicle plays are in

Sister Miriam Joseph, Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language (New York, 19^7)* p. 3- Hereafter cited as Sister Miriam Joseph, Shakespeare's Use of the Arts. ^Ibid. places rhetorical rather than poetical* This is a distinc­ tion which the Elizabethans would not or could not have made; to them the dividing line would be between good or bad rhet- , 3 oric. Since an adequate understanding of the status of rhet­ oric cannot be obtained without some attention to the rhet­ orical tradition extending from classical times to the Ren­ aissance, let us turn our attention to a brief history of rhetoric with special emphasis on the changing views which succeeding generations have taken of its purpose. To Aris­ totle rhetoric was the "faculty of discovering in the parti- cular case the available means of persuasion. With the preponderance of oratory it became necessary to set up defin­ ite rules whereby a speaker might frcune his speeches logically and convincingly. Since his audience was composed largely of untrained thinkers, his appeal was to be threefoldt to their reason (logos), to their feelings (pathos), and to their con-^ fidence in his character and reputation (ethos). To Aristotle, then, rhetoric was the combination of logic and ethical stud­ ies whereby one produced the desired impression upon the

^Gladys D. Willcock, Language and Poetry in Shake- ^ipeare's Sayly Plays (Londo' n , 19541, pp. 106-107. Hereafter Cited as Willcock, Language and Poetry. 4. I*ane Cooper, The lUietorIc of Aristotle (New York, 1932), P- 7. hearer or reader.'^ A speech had but two partst statement of the issues at hand (argumentation or logos) and proof or seeming-proof of the argixment (pathos and ethos). The later Greeks worked out a fivefold division of rhetoric which contrasted with the later views of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, llie first, inventlo, was the art of exploring material to find arguments for one's own case; second, dispositio was the arrangement of the material for delivery; third, elocutio was the style of arranging words in a sentence; fourth, memorla was the art of memorizing one's speech or arguments for the case; and fifth, pronuntla- tio was the art of voice projection and gesticulation. The first two may be categorized with reasoning (logos) and the 6 last three with oral delivery rather than writing. With the passing of the Greek civilization and the flowering of the Roman Empire, rhetoric continued to hold a distinguished spot in the lives of men in public life. Under the influence of Cicero, and aided by his writing on oratory, the prevailing idea was that the perfect orator was the per- 7 feet man. 'the law courts of the Roman provinces created a

^Sister Miriam Joseph, Shakespeare's Use of the Arts, p. 19. 6 Herbert David Rix, Rhetoric in Spenser's Poetry (state College, Pa., 1940), p. 7. Hereafter cited as Rlx, Spenser's Poetry. 'Encyclopaedia Brltannlca, "Rhetoric," XIX (1953), p. 247. continual demand for speakers with keen, analytical minds who were trained to view the issues in a political question, organize the case logically, and present their arguments in such a persuasive manner that the audience would be convinced of the worthiness of their contentions emd decide the case in their favor. Cicero was perhaps the ideal representative of this type. Quintilian in De Institutione Oratoria perpetuated the tradition. He regarded oratory as the ultimate goal toward which all training, both scholastic and moral, should be aimed. The development of a student depended upon rigid discipline, and his books provided a guide preparatory to further rhetorical study as well as numerous rules for for­ mulating effective speech. The first four hundred years of the Roman Empire were characterized by a great respect for rhetoric, but with the decline of freedom accompanying the dictatorial government rhetoric lost ground. Deprivation of freedom of speech on political questions caused a drought in subject matter for the orator. Skill in dialectics coupled with Independent views was an unfortunate combination for those accustomed to the open forum; they were forced to limit their activities to the declamation school. Rhetoric was now viewed from a different standpoint; rather than following the Aristotelian principle that rhetoric "gave effectiveness to truth," it came to mean the art of "giving effectiveness to the «8 speaker. Form, or style, became more important than con­ tent, or truth. With the decline of the Roman Empire, the treatises of the great classic rhetoricians were lost, and the study of the subject was limited to fragmentary or corrupt versions. In the Middle Ages the tradition of emphasis on style and figurative ornament continued, and this medieval view of rhetoric was still noticeable in sixteenth century England. Many of the schools used Rhetoricum ad Herennium for a text­ book rather than Cicero's De Oratore. This book contained definitions and illustrations of more than sixty tropes ajid schemes of words. It was used as a model for Joannes Susen- brotus's Epitome Troporum ad Schematxim of 1540, which was republished several times and used for a number of years as a textbook in rhetoric. Thus the narrow view of rhetoric still persisted, limiting it to a study of style and place­ ment of words. With the Renaissance, however, a complete revolution took place. Logic no longer took precedence over grammar and rhetoric. The curriculum once again incorporated the triviiun combining dialectic, rhetoric, €Uid grammar into the program for the undergraduate. A renewal of the reading of the ancients gradually awakened a new delight in the melody

C. S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, quoted in Rix, Spenser's Poetry, p. 7. ^of language, and rhetoric assumed the higher position in the trivi\im. Men became Intoxicated with the beauty of words. Shortly the study of rhetoric, the "art of using langiiage so Q as to persuade or influence others," became a universal cult. In England a part of this renewed interest was satis­ fied through the study of the ancient writers—Cicero and Q^intili€Ul, in particular. However, some new treatises in the vulgao* tongue were also produced. Leonard Cox wrote The Arte or Crafte of Rhetoi*yke (c. 1530), which was re­ printed in Latin. This work was partly original and partly compiled, differing from later works by considering only inventlo. Another schoolbook was Richard Sherry's Treatise of the Figures of Grammar and Rhetoric, profitable for all that be studious of eloquence (1550). Abraham Fraunce in a later work, Arcadisin Rhetor ike (I588), attempted to show the beauties of Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia. He was writing for the sophisticated and chose illustrations from poetry and books, using classical, continental, and recent English lit­ erature as source material. These selections show that he considered rhetoric mainly an appeal to the aural sensitivity 10 of the participant. He treated the subject as a twofold studyt style and delivery; he followed the Rhetorica of Talaeus rather closely, adding only two new figures, but

New English Dictionary, VIII, p. 626. Willcock, Language and Poetry, pp. II5-II6. furnishing numerous illustrations of his own choosing. With the advent of Thomas Wilson's Arte of Rhetor!que (published in 1553 and republished several times) there was a return to the classical tradition in the treatment of all five branches of rhetoric. Wilson, patterning his work after the Greek rhetoricians, contended that five qualities were necessary for the perfect orator: invention, disposition, elocution, memory, and utterance. The Arte of Rhetorique was divided into three sections. The first dealt with in­ vention and its causes, with illustrations of dubious worth principally of his own making. The second book took each part of an oration and discussed the various ways it could be treated. The third section incorporated the elements of elocution, memory, and utterance. He listed many figures or tropes, mainly from Cicero, and gave examples of each 11 rhetorical device from the classical writers. Henry Peacham in The Garden of Eloquence also used the structta»e of schemes and tropes. Due partly to Peacham's love for grandiloquence and partly to the system of classifi­ cation, 196 figures are included. Its full title indicates the popular view of the purpose of rhetorict

The Garden of Eloquence, Conteyning the Figures of Grammar €uid Rhetorick, from whence may bee gathered

11 Thomas Wilson, Arte of Rhetorique, edited by George Herbert Mair (Oxford, I909;, p. xx. Hereafter cited as Wilson, Arte. 8

I all maner of Flowers, Colours, Ornaments, Exomaticns, Formes and Fashions of Speech, very profitable for all those that be studious of Eloquence, and that reade most Eloquent Poets and Orators, £uid also help- eth much for the better understamdlng of the holy Scripture8.12

All the textbooks in use included detailed instruc­ tions in the proper way to form these embellishments of language, which were used as adornment exclusively and had I no function other than decoration. This doctrine of rhetori­ cal adornment swept over the writers and the orators of the period until it became almost a passion. Flowery, ornamental language was perhaps the most distinguishing stylistic fea­ ture of the literature of the last twenty-five years of the sixteenth century. The technical pleasure that was derived from the use of this superfluous adornment is clearly set forth in George Puttenham's Pie Arte of English Poesie, book three t So is there yet requisite to the perfection of this arte, €uiother maner of exornatlon, which resteth in the fashioning of our makers language and stile, to such purpose as it may delight and allure as well the mynde as the eare of the hearers with a certaine noueltie and strange maner of conueyance, disguising it no 11tie from the ordinary and accustomed: neuer- thelesse making it nothing the more vnseemely or mis- becomming, but rather decenter and more agreable to any ciuill eare and vnderstanding. And as we see in these great Madames of honour, be they for personage or otherwise neuer so comely and bewtlfull, yet if they wajit their courtly habillements or at leastwise such other apparell as custome and ciuilitie haue ordained to couer their naked bodies, would be halfe ashamed or greatly out of countenaunce to be seen in

l%enry Peacham, The Garden of Eloquence, quoted in Rix, Spenser's Poetry^ p. 10. that sort, and perchance do then thlnke themselues more amiable in euery mans eye, when they be in their richest attire, suppose of silkes or tyssowes & costly embroderies, then when they go in cloth or in any other plalne and simple apparell. Euen so cannot o\ir vulgar Poetsie shew it selfe either gallant or gorglous, if any lymme be left naked and bai^ and not clad in his kindly clothes and coulo\irs, such as may conuey them somwhat out of sight, that is from the common course of ordinary speach and capacitle of the vulgar Judgement, and yet being artificially handled must needes yeld it much more bewtie and commendation. This ornament we speake of is giuen to it by figures and figuratiue speaches, which be the flowers as it were and coulours that a Poet setteth vpon his lauigiiage by arte. 13

Shakespeare entered manhood during this period. He lived in an age which set almost no limits upon its belief in what language could accomplish. Wilson expressed the con- temporax*y thought when he stated:

For he that is among the reasonable of al most rea­ sonable, and among the wittle, of all most wlttie, and among the eloquent, of all most eloquent: him thlnke.I among all men. . . to be coumpted for halfe a God,-^^

The meaning of rhetoric had now been changed some­ what. Through a process of evolution it had become not only a tool of persuasion but also a means of decoration. The ornaments of style which the Elizabethans utilized were of two classes: (l) those in which emotion and aesthetic feel­ ing have always found expression, and (2) extremely artlfi-

^Qeorge Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie, edited by Gladys Doldge Willcock and Alice Walker (Cambridge, 1936), pp. 137-138. ^filson. Arte, preface. 10 cial patterns of words and thought. The first category in­ cludes such figures as metaphor, simile, hyperbole, irony, proverb, and rhetorical questions. It is more difficult to find examples of this group, because the lang\iage patterns employed under stress are basically the same. The second group is comprised of highly Ingenious word or thought pat­ terns such as using the same word at the end of a line that is used at the beginning, alliteration, circumlocution, or repeating a word with no intervening words for greater em­ phasis. Obviously, the Elizabethans exercised their knowledge of rhetoric which they had acquired from the textbooks and 15 from both ancient and modem literature. But the purpose of such an elaborate system of communication remained two­ fold: the form and structure of each trope or scheme were emphasized for their technical merit and impressiveness in ornamentation; logic was used in the organization of these thoughts into a convincing, meaningful whole thereby fulfill­ ing the purpose of persuasion. Dudley Fenner in The Artes of Logike and rethorlke (1584) divided his work into two books: logike and rhetorike. Each was broken down into simplest terms, with many sub­ divisions of thought, and supplemented with examples from the Bible. His books were written to further the Puritan cause and differed from those already in use principally by

15Hardi n Craig, The Enchanj^ed Class: The Elizabethan Mind in Literature ^Ne' w YOrk,. 193^)1536),, PP. lb2-lE3T 11

the illustrative material. Where Wilson had used examples of his own creation for the most part, Fenner used the Holy Scriptures. Shakespeare's develojaaent is primarily an evolution in style and mastery of rhetoric. Thro\igh a process of mat­ uration, he evolves from a writer who uses these languaige devices in a cl\amsy, unnatural style to one who skillfully weaves threads of thought and language into a masterpiece of tragedy, love, or hiimor. In his early plays he used rhetoric in the conventional manner, missing many of the possibilities which effective language could fulfill. Gradually, instead of an image being an imaige in and for itself alone, it came to function in numerous ways—to heighten dramatic effect, to portray character development, to introduce a new theme, to concentrate dramatic action into a meaningful whole. Met­ aphors, puns, iz*ony, and rhetorical questions were used with much more effectiveness in his later plays than in his first efforts. This process of development and increasing skill and artistry with words forms the basis for the present study. Very little stress will be placed upon the artificial devices of rhetoric which were used merely for adornment; the scope of this thesis is more limited, and, it is hoped, more use­ ful than a mere categorization of the extent to which Shake­ speare used aetalepsis, synecdoche, antiphrasis, liptote, epimone, or numerous other rather meaningless terms taken 12 from the Bli2^bethan textbooks of rhetoric. The fundamental problem in an analytical study of the z^ietorical skill of several of Shakespeare's villains lies not in the technical interest in the words being spoken, but in the thought or the spirit behind the words. Swinburne points out in his study that "criticism which busies itself only with the outer husk or technical shell of a great artist's work taking no account of the spirit or the thought which in- «16 forms it, cannot have even so much value as this. • • Of course, it is obvious "that the inner and the outer qualities 17 of a poet's work are of their very nature indivisible, ' but the emphasis in this study on rhetorical adornment will be negligible except as that langiiage serves at the same time in a more functional capacity. "Functional" rhetoric is a term which at the present time lacks adequate definition. Yet a careful €uid thoughtful perusal of some of Shakespeare's plays with especial atten­ tion directed towards the patterns of language which the vil­ lains used has convinced the writer that functional rhetoric is a meaningful term. It certainly is more inclusive than the Aristotelian view that rhetoric is limited to that lan- g\iage which is used to persuade.

16 Algernon Charles Swinburne, A Study of Shakespeare (London, 1902), pp. 7-8. -^"^Ibid. 13

Rhetoric is functional when it becomes an integral part of the play. Just as theme or structure. Without it, the play would be poorer from whatever aspect one regarded it. For example, in King Lear without the storm imagery the play would not be so intense, nor would it be as compact structurally speaking. The chaos in Nature is symbolic of the moral, physical, and spiritual breakdown of Lear and the kingdom. Without the recurring references to the storm which form a stinictural thread by which the themes of the play are drawn into one larger theme, the play would not be the same. This is functional rhetoric. Rhetoric is also functional when the language used intensifies the expression of emotions, thereby increasing dramatic concentration. Strong emotional experiences can be compressed into an image, which illiiminates powerfully the emotions, the reflections, and the inferences which it is the purpose of the passage to evoke. In a novel there is enoiigh elasticity in the plot to allow the author to digress if he wants to, but in a play every word must contribute to the main thought or to the atmosphere. Almost every detail comes to have meaning by the end of the drama; no thread has been injected into the language without its being picked up later to be woven into the whole pattern of action. Imagex*y and, to a lesser extent, irony are excellent devices for ex­ pressing highly charged emotions succinctly and concisely. Here also language is being used functionallyj the words 14 are not employed to produce an effect but to give the play more meaning in an artistic economy of words. Rhetoric is functional when it gives breadth and scope to the dramatic action. In prose this is achieved by the descriptive method, but in drama it is accomplished throiigh figures of speech. This language which reveals the presence of the surrounding or accompanying universe of thought or ex­ perience and gives the drama a wider setting than would otherwise be possible is functional. The animalistic imagery 1^ Othello is an example of this interworking of langxiage with action to provide a wider setting than that in which the acttial events occur. At the beginning of the play lago's sub-human tendencies are revealed through the bestial imagery in his language. By means of persuasion, insinuation, and clever manipulation of words he is able to poison Othello's mind regarding Desdemona's faithfulness to him, and the rhet­ orical references to beasts become a part of Othello's char­ acter, lago successfully dehiunanizes Othello until he, too, thinks at a sub-human level. 'Riat language is also functional which enriches the play by continually recalling the underlying mood. It be­ comes an organic part of the drama by creating atmosphere. 1^ Richard III the curses and forebodings of the women char­ acters form a backdrop for the main action. Their curses be­ come fulfilled prophecies, linking the past with the present or* the present with the future. When Anne calls down the 15 wrai^ "of God on Richard's future wife by pronouncing this vengeful curse: If ever he have child, abortive be it. Prodigious, and untimely brought to light. Whose \igly and unnatural aspect May fright the hopeful mother at the view— (Riehard III, I, ii, 21-24) she is in reality placing a ovirse on herself. The tone of the play is heightened by Margaret's scathing epithets, "elvish-mark'd, abortive, rooting hog," "son of hell," "loathed issue of thy father's loins," and her curses be­ come prophecies of Richard's death. These are but two of the many examples of language used by Shakespeare for the ptirpose of Intensifying the drama by emphasizing the mood behind the actions, and suggests language with a broader function than adornment or persiiasion. Language has a purpose if it aids significant revela­ tion of character. This may be accomplished by words spoken by the character himself or by some other character. The figures of speech referred to above uttered by Margaret in denunciation of Richard disclose this function of rhetoric by giving a broader insight into the true character of this villain. A character often reveals himself through his In- 18 stinctive choice of subject in which to image his thoughts.

18 Una Ellis-Fermor, The Frontiers of Drama (New York, 1946), pp. 87-90. 16

Regan always chooses images of passion showing the uncurbed experience of the senses. Her cruelty and hard-hear tedness are evidenced in the scene in which it is learned that Glou­ cester has aided Lear to escape. She exclaims, "Hang him instantly," and a few lines later, "Ingrateful fox.' 'tis he," and "0 filthy traitor!" Her own father to whom she has so staunchly vowed her loyalty in the first scene has now become "the lunatic king," The language which she chooses is more revelatory of her true character than any action she could perform. Functional rhetoric also Includes that language which arouses the desired response. lago is an artist in decep­ tion, and his main device is a skillful manipulation of words. When he wishes to destroy Othello's confidence in Cassio and to plant the first seeds of distrust, he does it by means of t»hetoric. Through reiteration and innuendo he succeeds in piqueing Othello's curiosity in the relationship of Cassio ^d Desdemona. When the Moor comes to the point that he says:

By heaven, he echoes me. As if there were some monster in his tho\ight Too hideous to be shown. Thou dost mean something: I heard thee say even now, thou likedst not that. When Cassio left my wife: what didst not like? And when I told thee he was of my counsel In my whole course of wooing, thou criedst "Indeedi' As if thou then hadst shut up in thy brain Some horrible conceit— (Othello, III, ill, 110-119) then lago has become master of the situation, and Othello has become the aull. Rhetoric has been lago's only tool for 17 achieving this response. Functional rhetoric is that which gives a hint to the audience of what is to come. In Goneril's first speech she tells her father that she loves him "dearer than eye-sight;" a few speeches later Lear orders Kent out of his sight and Kent speaks out against his blindness: "See better, Lear, and let me still remain / The true blank of thine eye." Thus in the first scene of the play we find numerous references to sight and the ability to see clearly. This imagery paves the nay for a much deeper symbolism. Total lack of Insight, or blindness to the true facts, is later to become a major theme of the drama. Very early in the play the sight imagery pre­ pares the audience for the ensuing action. The last function of rhetoric vdiich I have derived from analyzing the speeches of Aaron the Moor, Richard III, Regan, amd lago is that at times it provides a counterpoint to one of the central themes of the play. In Hamlet the inner con­ flict is coalescent with the outward conflicts between char­ acters. The Elizabethan concept of rhetoric embraced two uses: persimsion and ornamentation. If one uses the criteria for functional rhetoric in the definitive limits given above, language used for mere embellishment would not be considered jfunotional. However, in most cases, ornamental rhetoric also serves in other capacities. The speeches adhered to the Elizabethan ideal of J^lowery language, but their usefulness 18 is usually twofold. Elaboration of detail for the sake of verbosity alone will be omitted from this study; but when it serves as a useful tool with a purpose behind it, it will be included. A definition then of functional rhetoric based upon the ideas Just discussed would be that language which is used (l) to carry on the dramatic action, (2) to reveal char­ acter development, (3) to create mood or atmosphere, (4) and to enhance the dramatic structure of the play. By their very nature these elements seldom exist as independent spheres; emphasis on the i)arts becomes meaningful only as they are re­ lated to the whole, llie play must be regarded as a totality, and the severing of the whole into parts is done only to make the whole more meaningful. What new facets of understanding about rhetoric does the writer of the present study hope to reveal? What can be said about Shakespeare's languaige that has not already been said? There has been a very sparse amount of research done o^ functional rhetoric, though many studies have been con­ ducted from the standpoint of technical proficiency. In this study an attempt will be made: first, to define the term, functional rhetoric; second, to analyze the speeches of four Shakespeeu^ean villains in terms of the criteria indicated above; and third, to determine the role of functional rhetoric In the effective portrayal of these villains. Wie four mis­ creants chosen for study are Aaron the Moor from Titus 19

AndronicuB, Richard III, Regan from King Lear, and lago from Othello. A developmental maturity in the use of langxiage is evidenced by a comparison of the rhetoric employed in the early plays with that used in the later plays. Aaron and Richard III are representative of the skill whicn Shakespeare exhibited in his early writings; Regan and lago illustrate the more skillful use of rhetoric which the mature Shakespeare achieved. The study will attempt to show conclusively that the later villains depended more upon their skill in func­ tional rhetoric for their effectiveness than the early vil­ lains did and that rhetoric was an important factor in the successful development of each villain. Ih the process of analyzing each play, the following questions will be used as bases for conclusions concerning the generaJL language patterns of the four villains. Is there a difference in the nature of the speeches in monologue and dialogue? What situations tend to produce an abundance of rhetorical devices? Does each character have an individualized language pattern? Is there any discernible difference between the language of the men and the women? How does language con­ tribute to the atmosphere of the play? What effect does the role of character have on the dramatic action of the play? Are the villains of the early or late period more convincirig? What traits in villainy were acceptable to the Elizabethan audience which are frowned upon in present times? At what point in Sliakespeare's development does the language become 20 an organic part of the" play and cease to represent mere tech­ nical skill? By posing these questions when i;hey pertain to the play under consideration, I hope to obtain further evi­ dence that Shakespeare became more skillful in the use of rhetoric and that the Isinguage became more functional and more organic in his later plays. A study of the process of maturation of style will provide a partial answer to these questions. Shakespeare's power to associate the devices of language with the totality of the play, at first a mere potentiality, develops and ex­ tends, step by step, with his development as a playwright. His early work is characterized by a schematic use of the most obvious rhetorical and logical devices. Too often in the early plays he follows the style of the times aind seems to be more occupied in the pursuit of words than in the ptirsuit of ideas. In his mature work he continues to use these devices and many others, but with more dramatic fitness and subtlety. CHAPTER II AARON THE MOOR

Titus Andronlcus, a play which has occasioned much critical comment as to authorship because of its exaggerated expression of passion and its revolting subject matter, be­ longs to Shakespeare's earliest period. The crudity of style and repulsiveness of taste have been attributed to Shakespeare's inexperience and lack of skill in tragic drama. But it must be remembered that the Elizabethan audience ac­ cepted the tragedy of blood with enthusiasm, and the lack of feeling for which the play is now criticized would have seemed irrational to the Elizabethan, whose concept of this dramatic form is described by Mark Van Doren as follows:

The tragedy of blood as a form called only for heaps of death, and sentiment was as much out of place as it is in the modem equivalent, the de­ tective story, which fails as soon as the reader is permitted to have any pity for the victim of poison, bullet, or dagger. The spectator at a tragedy of blood wain ted only new shapes of death, aind novel devices for revenge.2

All of these demands of the Elizabethan theater-goers were

^. Dugdale Sykes, Sidelights on Shakespeare (1920); J. M. Robertson, The Authorship of **Titus Andronicus : An ihe

J. Dover Wilson _»«_>__----.,-___. 1948), particularly pp. xxv-1, in which he contends that the play is maJLnly the work of George Peele. Shakespeare (New York, 1939), p. 38. Hereafter cited as Van Doren, ShaE'speare. 21 22 met by Aaron the Moor, the bloody villain in Titus Androni­ cus. A difference in dramatic effect between those traige- dies which evolve from a traiglc flaw of character amd those "which unfeelingly take pleasure in suffering innocence, in paraded sorrow, in tongues cut out amd hands hewn off" can be immediately discerned. One may compare the most wicked of all Shakespearean characters with Aaron, who cursed "the day in which he did not some notorious ill," amd find that in the first at least a bare remnant of humamity is left while Aaron, a "ravenous tiger," commits unnatural deeds and 3 speaks unnatiu^al lamguage. Regardless of the refined palates of twentieth cen­ tury readers, the Elizabethan audience approved Titus. It is in harmony with the tradition of conventional drama in that it incorporates the Senecam influences of the tragedy of blood, sensational rhetoric, and the revenge theme. Shakespeare drew upon his reading of the classics smd in­ cluded Latin quotations, touches of Virgil and Ovid, with direct references to Ovid's Metamorirfioses, and constant allu­ sions to mythology and history, ShakespeaiTe's use of mythology in Titus Andronicus is revelatory of his lack of skill in interweaving two elements

3 G. G. Gervinus, Shakespesire Commentaries, translated by F. E. Burnett (l«ondon, 1903 ji P. i03. Hereafter cited as Gervinus, - CommentarieSn. — 23 into one draunatic thought. In the later plays Shakespeaure uses mythology in order to lend color or individualization to a character. In Titus the references to mythology are mainly for the purpose of displaying knowledge. When Satvimine's virtues ajre ccanpared to "Titam's raiys on eau?th" or when it is said of Tamora that she outshines the Roman women "like the stately Phoebe 'mongst her nymj^s" (I, 1, 316), Shakespeare is merely using stereotyped images. In the case of the more obscui*e mythological compairlsons, he is seeking through the use of learned quotations to prove 4 himself as much a master of mythology as Greene. At this point of Shakespeare's development, the Imagery does not yet serve a genuinely dramatic purpose. The images employed are not prepared for beforehand; there is no under­ lying idea which connects the image with the train of thought—it is a separate entity. 1!his lack of internal amd external connection between the imagery and the structure of the text accoiints for its auptificiality. To be truly func­ tional the imagery must be an orgamic pairt of the passaige. Also contributing to this lack of orgamic unity is the character of the speeches. The words in Titus are not yet necessarily individual to the person by whom they are spoken. Any character could have said them Just as

4 Wolfgamg H. Clemen, The Develpixaent of Shatkespeare' s liaagery (l^ondon, 1951), p. 26. Hereafter cited as Clemen, rvelopment of Shakespeare's Imaigery. 24

effectively. Since tjie dlalogoe is often inserted as mere dialogiue and does not serve to develop character, to intensify the dramatic action, or to create mood or atmosphere, it is, at times, not funetionatl and does not contribute to the in­ ner organic structure of the drama. The villain, Aaron the 9$oor, is little more than a t^rpe villain. He is lustful and cruel slaqply because these traits were expected of the Klisabethan villain. There is little payehologicaa motivation to his evil deeds. His only htsaan quaaity is his love for his son. Aaron makes his first appearance in the play as a prisoner of Titus Andronicus and his sons, who have returned victorious frc»B a war with the Goths. The action progresses x*apidly, and by the end of the first act Aar^i's mistress, Ttoora, has become the bride of the i^wly-elected

5 Clemen, Development of Shakespeetre's Imagery, p. 21. 25

Now climbeth Tamora Olympus' top. Safe out of forttme's shot; amd sits aloft. Secure of thunder's crack or lightning flash; Advanced above pale envy's threatening reach. As when the golden sun salutes the morn. And, having gilt the ocean with his beams. Gallops the zodiac in his glistering coach. And overlooks the highest-peering hills; So Tamora,

(II, i, 1-9)

Lines 4-8 are an inorganic simile which could be omit­ ted without changing the meaming. Quite often in this play the comparison of two things is achieved by using the words like or as amd then attaching the simile. These connective words not only malce the image stamd out from the text amd isolate it to a certain extent, but they also acknowledge that the object being compared and the comparison are looked upon as two separate entities having no organic connection, Aaron inserts a second image on top of lines 1-4 which re­ presents quite an interruption in thought. He continues:

Upon her wit doth earthly honour wadLt, And virtue stoops and trembles at her frown. Then, Aaron, arm thy heart, and fit thy thoughts. To moimt her pitch, whom thou in triumph long Hast prisoner held, fetter'd in amorous chains And faster bound to Aaron's charming eyes Than is Prometheus tied to Caucasus. Awaiy with slavish weeds and servile thoxaghtsi I will be bright, and shine in pearl and gold. To wait upon this new-made empress. To wait, said I? to wanton with this queen. This goddess, this Semiramis, this nymph. This siren, that will charm Rome's Satur*nine,

, , The text used for the,quotations is Pie. Complete Works of Shakespeares edited by ifirdin Craig (New York, 1931). Utilgss otherwise indloated the lines are quoted from the play under consideration in that chapter. 26

And see his shipwreck and his commonweal's. (II, 10-24)

What character revelations have been made in this first speech? First, Aau:*on's technique is much like lago's in that he will, whenever possible, work his villainy through somebody else. He is to be the originator of the schemes, the creator, but Tamora and her sons will carry them out. Second, Aaron regards Tamora not as Satvirnlne's "new-made empress" but as a tool for his own wamton purposes, amd, third, the two of them are to precipitate the downfall of Saturnine and his kingdom through their own special brand of villainy. Stylistically ShaOcespeare uses several tropes amd schemes in this introduction of one of his most memorable villains. In an image which is orgamically sound Aaron pair- ticulau*izes the z*elationship between himself amd Tamora: he has her "fetter'd in amorous chains" amd more securely bound than Prometheus was to the mountain in the Caucasus. Ihroiogh symploche he emphasizes the true appeauL each has for the other: "To wait upon this new-made empress, / To wait, said I? to wanton with this queen." This is followed by a series of epithets arranged in descending order in which he begins his apostrophe to the absent Tamora by referring to her as queen, then goddess, Semiramis, nymph, and finally siren, mirough his choice of words he diminishes her worth from that of queenly estate, to goddess indicating her beauty, to 27

the mythical queen of Assyria famous for her cruelty amd lust, and finally to the realm of that group of minor deities famed for their destruction of seamen. He continues the ima- ge3?y of the sea by connecting this destructive force with the ship of state headed by Saturninus. In one short speech of twenty-four lines the blueprint for the entire play has been drawn by the arch-architect of villainy, Aaron. The second act of Titus Andronicus contains much of the Ovldlan luxuriance of language native to ShaJcespeare's 7 early style, In this act alone Aaron employs alliteration thirty-eight times in his sixteen speeches, "Full well I wot the ground of all this grudge," "lingering languishment," "dainty doe," "l^e woods are ruthless, dreadful, deaf, amd dull;/ There speak, and strike, brave boys, and taike your turns" are but four examples of Aaron's skill in giving his languaige a musical quality through alliteration, though the song he often sings is in discord with the good things of life. Aaron uses proverbial material three times in Act II, but they aire common proverbs and do not enhance the under­ standing of his character in the least. "To set the best foot forward" is a statement many people use amd would have no functional role in an analysis of the "barbarous Moor's

7 Gervinus, Commentaries, p, 105. Examples of this Influence may be found in i, 1-25; 1, 82-89; 1, IO8-I3I; 11, 1-10; ill, 10-29. 28 language." Bplzeuxls, the repetition of words with none between. Is used forty-five times in Titus, according to a study by Professor R, F. Hill. He found that in sixteen of these a vocative had been Inserted between the repeated words. In the other six early plays which he used for comparison, he found no more than two to six instances of a vocative being placed between the repeated words and in none did he find the iteration so wooden as in Titus. However, this is not a characteristic of Aaron's speech; he uses it only three times. This utilization of the conventional devices of rhet­ oric constitutes the least importamt facet of Aaron's language. But his dependence upon logic abets his villainy to a greater degree. When Chiron amd Demetrius enter fighting over who should possess Lavinia, Aaron stops them amd shows them the folly of their actions. He advises them to use their power of cunning, to devise a plam which will achieve their desired end without using force aigainst each other. Logic is more effective tham aimless action; but in case there la not enough time to bring a well-plamned scheme to fxniition, then a speedy covtrae must be pursued. If words fail with Lavinia, then use force: "Single you thither then this dainty doe, / And strike her home by force, if not by words: / This way or

8 "The Composition of Titus Andronicus," Shakespeare gurvey^ X (1957), p. 68. 29 not at all, stamd you in hope." With the prono\mcement which could well be Aaron's motto since it chau»acterizes his every thought amd action, "To villainy amd vengeance consecrate," Aaron outlines a plam for them to consiimmate. On the morrow during the hunt they are to find Lavinia, kill her husband, Bassianus, and hide him in a hole in the woods. Aaron is to assume the responsibility at that point of effecting circumstances which will point the finger of guilt toward Titus's sons, leaving Demetrius amd Chiron free to "revel in Lavinia's treasury." Aaron conceives the plan quickly amd witliout effort. It is an utterance which comes spontaneously, with his own mark of individuality staunped upon it in that he displays am utter disregard for those things which are held in highest esteem by most people. To complete the conspiracy Aaron's next step is to hide a baig of gold which will be instrumental in the plot to Implicate Titus's sons in the murder of Bassianus, He revels in his cleverness:

He that had wit would think that I had none. To bury so much gold under a tree. And never after to inherit it. Let him that thinks of me so abjectly Know that this gold must coin a stratagem. Which, cunningly effected, will beget A very excellent piece of villany: (II, 11, 1-7) This is fxmctional rhetoric because it reveals an­ other facet of Aaron's character at the saune time that it gives a hint to the audience of what is to follow. It is 30

through the deceit and intrigue of Aaron's fiendish mind that the dramatic action is sustained throughout the play. Every thing that happens in the play is due either directly or in­ directly to the plotting of this Machiavelll. One factor which gives Aaron's brand of villainy such an Inhiimane effect is the lack of psychological motivation for his deeds. He has not been wronged personally; he has no injustice to avenge; nor does he have amything to gain by involving himself in matters which should not be a cause of conceim to him. He relates the details of the scheme to Tamora in language which is functional since it pinpoints the only Justification he can have for his role in the ac­ tion:

Vengeance is in my heart, death in my hand. Blood and revenge are hammering in my head. . . .This is the day of doom for Bassiamus: His Philomel must lose her tongue to-day. Thy sons make pillage of her chastity And wash their hands in Bassianus' blood. (II, 11, 38-45)

To complete the plan he asks Tamora to deliver a "fatal- plotted scroll" to Saturninus. There is no need for persua­ sive lamguage since Tamora will do anything her "lovely Moor" asks her to do. Once the plan gets underway there is no means of stop­ ping or ailtering the chain of events as Aaron has outlined them. Aau:»on assumes a different role in the action that fol­ lows; instead of being the crafty creator he becomes the 31 innocent by-stamder. In the rapid unfolding of the plot, Aaron is relatively silent. He succeeds in luring Quintus and Martius, the sons of Titus, to the pit where Bassiamus's body is hidden. One falls in amd drags the other in after him. Shortly thereaifter the king enters amd accuses them of his brother's murder. The Moor does not accuse Titus's sons of the crime; he merely stands by and lets Saturninus infer their guilt from the circumstantial evidence. Here his 9 silence is much more effective tham any rhetoric, amd by his silence he prevents attracting attention to himself or to Tamora. Aaron executes a minor role in the dramatic action at this point of the platy. He does tell Titus that the em­ peror will trade the lives of his two sons for a hand. Titus willingly chops off his hand with Aairon's eaiger assis- tamce.

And for thy hand IiOOk by and by to have thy sons with thee. /Xside/ Their heads, I meam, 0, how this villany ISoth fat me with the very thoughts of it,' Let fools do good, and fair men call for grace, Aau»on will have his soul black like his face, (III, i, 201-206) His candid amalysis to the audience of his character and motives exemplifies the conventional Machiavelliam

9 In the article. The Dramatic Use of Imaigery in Shake speare's Coriolanus." ELH, XXIII (1956), pp. l83-193i Maurice Chamey suggests"iTlence as a dramatic image. He contends that in_certain situations silence is a more effective image tham spoken words. 32 villain. His villainy is without other motive than a desire 10 to express a character absolutely evil. He admits that he is lying to Titus, but the admission leaves him Joyful rather tham conscience-stricken. The inhumamity of returning the hamd with the two heads to Titus is merely a clever bit of villainy as far as A8U»on is concerned. He expresses his emo­ tions in this ruthless manner:

I play'd the cheater for thy father's hand. And when I had it, drew myself apart And almost broke my heart with extreme laughter: I pry'd me through the crevice of a wall When, for his hand, he had his two sons' heads; Beheld his tears, amd laugh'd so heartily. That both mine eyes were rainy like to his. (V, 1, 111-117)

When the Andronici finally learn who the perpetrators of their suffering are, they send weapons and letters to the trio: Chiron, Demetrius, amd Aaron. Chiron fails to see the significance of the message. To him it is only a quota­ tion from Horace; Aaron, however, realizes that the "old man hath found their guilt," Ke replies to Chiron in a deliberate paradox which certainly would not be understandable if he does not see through the less subtle message from Titus: Titus "sends them weapons wrapp'd about with lines, /That wound, beyond their feeling, to the quick," They are wounded

Craig, ed.. Complete Works, p. 38O-38I. The con­ vention was made popular on the Ellzabetham stage by Marlowe's Barabas in The Jew og Mal^^-g* Shakespeare used it in the creation of Rlchau»d III, Edmund, and lago. 33

to the quick, but because of their stupidity they do not feel it.

The only redemptive characteristic in Aaron's cold­ blooded villainy is the pride which he displays in his first- bom son. He defies Chiron amd Demetrius to touch this ttJoyless , dismal, black, amd sorrowful issue . . .loathsome as a toad" amd threatens to kill anyone who would attempt to harm the babe. TOiere is a sudden chamge of style in the speech that follows. He begins with a Marloviam rant:

I tell you, younglings, not Enceladus, With all his threatening band of Typhon's brood. Nor great Aleides, nor the god of war. Shall seize this prey out of his father's hands.

Then Aaron gloats over the color of the child which betraiys the identity of the father, and he belittles the pale com­ plexion of Tamora's other sons:

What, what, ye sanguine, shallow-hearted boysI Ye white-limed walls! ye alehouse painted signsI Coal-black is better tham another hue. In that it scorns to bear another hue. (IV, 11, 93-100)

Here Aaron combines two common proverbs: "Black will take no other hue" (Tilley, B436) amd "Above God there is no lord, above black there is no color, and above salt there is no

11«. Thomas Marc Parrott, Shakespeaream Comedy (New York. 1949), pp. 196-197. 34 savor" (Tilley, G172).^^ Again he scorns the "treacherous hue, that will betray with blushing / The close enacts amd counsels of the heart.'" In the speeches calculated to persuade Tamora's sons to abamdon their plan to kill his child, Aaron uses a pre­ ponderance of proverbial material. Nine of the fifteen proverbs used by Aaron are employed in this scene. Why should he quote proverbs? Generally, they were used as an eu:»gument in an appeal to authority, the authority of slowly accumulated wisdom of the race. This authority is authentic because its very existence depends upon generations of people 13 accepting it as truth. In am attempt to Justify his illicit relations with Tamora he uses the sententiae, "Things done cannot be undone" (Tilley, T200). To lessen the bitterness which the sons feel aigainst Aaron he employs the proverb, "The Mother's side is the sxxrer side" (Tilley, M1205). Five of the fifteen p3?overbial utterances relate to color. Aaron overpowers their desire to murder the babe through his persuasive rhetoric. When Chiron amd Demetrius lose their will to act decisively, they revert to the custom­ ary pattern of command—they look to Aau:*on for leadership.

12 The notion that black is the best color is found in Sandford's Garden of Pleasure (1573). According to the O.D.E.P. "Black will take no other hue" was first quoted from Heywood (1546). "^Katherine Lever, "Proverbs amd Sententiae in the Plays of Shakespere," Shakespeare Association Bulletin, XIII (1938), p. 229. m— 35

"Advise thee, Aaron, what is to be done, / And we will all subscribe to thy advice." In order to keep the secret of the paternity of the child from Saturninus, Aaron suggests a plam whereby his black child will be traded for the new-bom white son of a countryman. Mull, who lives nearby. Since "two may keep counsel when the third's away," Aaron kills the nurse. As he stabs her, he imitates the sounds she makes: "Weke, weke.' so cries a pig prepared to the spit." He is made even more colossal in his villainy by his determination to kill the midwife, Cornelia, who helped deliver the baby and by his heartless scheme to bribe the wife of his countryman to ex- 14 change her child for Aaron's. Ironically, it is the tragic flaw in his villainy which precipitates his downfall. The love he displays for his bastard son is the force which is used as a lever to break the veneer of his hardened heart. His languaige, at this point, is strengthened, because for the first time it is accompanied by depth of feeling. The rhetoric assumes a unique function in that when it becomes an orgamic part of himself, he then defeats his own villainous purposes. Though his languaige becomes stronger, his effectiveness as a villain Is diminished when he becomes personally involved and expresses

14 William Bryan Gates, "ihe Reality of Shakepere's "Supers," Shakespeau:*e Association Bulletin, XX (1945), p. 163. 36 love for his son. The lamguage he uses in addressing the baby at the time of their capture is revelatory of his character, bestial even in father love. Peace, tawny slave, half me and half thy dam.' Did not thy hue bewray whose brat thou art. Had nature lent thee but thy mother's look. Villain, thou mightst have been am emperor: But where the bull and cow are both milk-white, l^iey never do beget a coal-black calf. Peace, villain, peace.' (V, 1, 27-33)

The babe was conceived in animal lust and is still described in the basest terms. When Aaron promises to tell the truth providing the child is allowed to live, he approaches, if he does not reach, humanity. If he had recognized the enormity of his villainy and had been repentant, he would have defied all the rules for stage villains. Therefore, he remains obdurate, cruel, and even barbarous as he faces death. His only regret is that he camnot commit ten thousand more evil deeds. The gradation of the crimes he has performed is from murder and rape to Hallowe'en pramks. He rues the daiy he has not killed a mam, or ravished an innocent maid, set a farmer's bam on fire, or placed cadavers on the doorsteps of friends.

Tut, I have done a thousamd dreadful things As willingly as one would kill a fly. And nothing grieves me heartily indeed But that I cannot do ten thousamd more. (V, 1, 141-144) 37

He even scorns the tortures of hell, "if there be devils, would I were a devil, / To live and bum in everlasting fire." His \2nfeeling atheism is almost too wooden to provoke sym­ pathy. With a heart of stone he killed the n\irse; he accepts his own death in the same way. His last words upon the staige are: "If one good deed in all my life I did, / I do repent it from my very soul," CHAPTER III RICHARD III

A study of Richard III reveals two facts: first, Richard was a sly, contemptuous, degenerate villain; amd, second, much of the dramatic action of the play was motivated through a clever mamipulation of words. Indeed, for maximum effectiveness any villain, whether of the fifteenth or twenti­ eth century, must be gifted with consummate powers of speech, a keen mind, and piercing wit. The ccanbination of these three attributes in Richard's personality fitted him for the role of a villain who depended largely on a skilled use of rhetoric to accomplish his purposes. Richard III differs from Shakespeare's earlier plays in that it is the first play in which the entire action is centered around one character, it is a drama of one man who in himself personifies the evil of the civil war. There is nobody else to share the burden or the blame or to turn the 1 purposes of Richard's evil will. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who was later to become King Richard III, was first introduced in 2 and 3 Henry VI. '/ In these plaiys, he may have been impelled by ambition to com- ' mit the acts of villainy which were necessary for him to achieve the crown, but by the time we meet him in Richard III

1 Smest Mairshall Howse, Spiritual Values in Shades- speare (New York^ 1955), p. 79. 38 39 crime has become dearer to him than ambition, and the ambition-factor dz*ops out of sight. He is like Aaron in that his wicked deeds are not so much a means to am end as an end in themselves. He promises himself more pleasure in winning than in possessing the crown; it is the game rather tham the goal that matters; therefore, he will be an artist 2 in villainy. [^ The impelling motive behind the perpetration of his many crimes seems to be lodged in an Ellzabetham belief that physical deformity necessitated moral deformity. Richard is almost in love with the hump on his back, as it is his symbol of promise and power: "^is shoulder was ordain'd so thick to heave; / And heave it shall some weight, or breaic my back." And again:

llhen, since this earth affords no Joy to me. But to command, to check, to o'erbear such As are of better person than myself I'll make my heaven to dreaun upon the crown. (3 Henry VI, III, 11, I65-I68)

Richard finds malicious delight in turning the standards of men topsy-turvy. What Christian ethics considers right, he denovmces as wrong, and what others think wrong he makes right. He positively revels in his physical deformity--not as a means of exciting sympathy for himself but as a method

John Palmer, Political Characters of ShaOcespeare (London, 1948), p, 72*^ Hereafter cited as Palmer, Political Characters. 40

of emphasizing the brilliamt, imperious qualities of his mind.•'J)ften in his meditations Richard mentions his ugliness amd repulsive appearance; others find him odious as a "bottled spider." From the beginning he connects his criminal career with the reflection that he is "not shaped for spor­ tive tricks." Still it would be going too far to designate this the sole motivating factor in his villainous deeds. The spirit of the speeches would indicate that though he re­ ceives a morbid pleasure in contemplating his physical ugli­ ness and his moral baseness,^-yef they are not the causes for action. There appears, then, no sufficient explamation or motive for the villainy of Richard: "the general Impression conveyed is that to Richard, villainy has become an end in itself needing no special motive. This is one of the simplest principles of hximan development—that a means to am end tends «4 in time to become an end in itself, Richard amd Aaron would be comparable in this respect; they both lacked sound psycho­ logical bases for their inhuman behavior. The only semblance of hximanity exhibited in the entire career of Richard is found in his love for his father at the beginning of his career. After Mortimer's Cross he cannot

Palmer, Political Characters, p. 69. ..A 4 Quoted by Horace Howard Fumess, Jr., ed. Richard the Third Variorum (Philadelphia, 1908), from R. G. Moulton, ^On the Character of Rlchau»d," p. 569. Hereafter cited as Rlchau?d the Third Variorum. 41 rest until he knows what has"happened to his father. This affection does not result from York's exceptionail bravery, nor from respect for his ability, but rather it seems to stem from hero-worship: "Methinks, 'tis prize enough to be his son." Aau*on, in contrast, conceived his only redemptive q\iality in the birth of his son amd his willingness to die providing the baby would be allowed to live. Love, which was a foz»eign element to both of them, did constitute a meager portion of their being. There is still another facet of Richard's character v^ich differentiates him from Jlaron. Whenever possible, Aaron let other people execute his execrable plans; he killed only when it was absolutely necessary. Mao'k Vam Doren sug­ gests that Richard is a murderer by nature; he likes to kill amd when it is feasible, he does his own butchery. He fur­ ther points out that Shakespeare had not yet discovered the secret of true success in delineating villaJ.nous chaa»acterl- zation. For optimum effectiveness the villain should be a hero too,

a better mam tham we at the same time that he is worse By nature he must be incapable of inflicting death, as Othello and Hamlet are, and as Macbeth must once have been. That is why his doing so will terrify us. Great stories of murder are about men who could not have done it but who did.5

5 Van Doren, Shakespeare, p. 36. 42

Richard^s soliloquy in 3 Henry VI establishes his character, which is inherent in the quality of the verse he speaks, mchard is a dramatic ctiaracter; his wit, scorn, and adopted "diction of common life" individualize him. His language, like his person, is diametrically opposed to the 6 main theme of the play./ Despite his claim early in the play that he is a "plain man," incapable of amythlng but direct lamguage, he is a master of practical eloquence. Rhetoric for ornamentation is perhaps most evident in the soliloquies of the play. Richard III is the only Shake­ spearean plaiy which opens with a soliloquy, as if to indicate the moral solitariness of the chau:»acter. .Richard is por- trayed as one who has by nature been cut off from normal human relationships;'and as all social feeling is extinguish­ ed, the humanity of his nature dies^with it, leaving merely the residue of inflated egocentricity.\^He loves no one, trusts no one, and, strange to say, hates no one, but he / / uses everybody to his own advantage. He has no one in whom he cam confide; therefore, he must think aloud. Hiese self- revelatlons are not only a dramatic necessity, but they re­ veal some of Richard's skill in the ornamental use of the languags.

^M. C. Bradb3?ook, giakespeare and Elizabethan Poetry (London, 1951), p. 133. Hereafter cited as Bradbrook, Elizabethan Poetry. 43

The opening soliloquy is full of poetry:

Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by thia sun or York; And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house In the^eep bosom of the ocean buried. Now are ^\wf brows bound with victorious wreaths; Our bruised! ajfTtts l^ung up for monuments; Our stem aldnams changed to merry meetings. Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.

The metaphor of the seasons and such descriptive words ^^ glorious, sun, victorious, merry and delightful prepare one for peace and am end to the strife between the houses of York amd Lancaster. Yet in the same sentences Richard is able thro\4gh effective use oflanguage to set the tone for conflict amd trouble ^Clouds that lour'd, discontent, and dreadful marches indicate that the settlement of strife is merely an outward demonstration amd that seeds of hatred are lying dormant ready to spring into life at the slightest pro­ vocation. Richard continues:

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks. Nor made to court an amorous looking glass; I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty To strut before a wanton ambling nymph; I, that am curtail »d of this fair proportion. Cheated of feature by dissembling nature. Deform'd, iinfinish'd, sent before my time Into this breathing world, scarce half made up. And that so launely amd \mfashionable That dogs bark at me as I halt by them; . . .Therefore, since I cannot prove a lover. To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain. (I, i, 1-30) 44

Wth this •detenalnation" Richard assumes control of the

Go, tread the path that thou shalt ne^er return. Simple, plain Clarence.' I do love thee so. That I will shortly send thy soul to heaven. If heaven will take the present at our hands. (I, i, 117-120)

^Bradbrook, Elizabethan Poetry, p. 260. 46

Ibi the reconciliation scene in which Edward Is at­ tempting to bring together the unfriendly elements in the family, Gloucester agadln appropriates the guise of unassum­ ing piety. Through the rhetorical device of optatio he pledges aonity.

If I unwittingly, or in my rage. Have aught committed that is hardly borne By any in this presence, I desire To reconcile me to his friendly peace: 'Tis death to me to be at enmity; I hate it, amd desire all good men's love. (II, 1, 56-61)

Richard apologizes to the Queen, to Buckingham, to Rivers and Dorset. 13iey have frowned on him without cause, but he bears them no hard feelings.

I do not know that Englishman alive With whom my soul is any Jot at odds Viore tham the infant that is bom to-night: I thank my God for my humility. (II, i, 69-72)

With the group thus thrown off-guard, Gloucester announces the death of Clairence amd then accuses Elizabeth and her kinsmen of the plot. In this faculty of turning every oppor- t tunity to his advantaige we see again the skill of the cons\im- mate craftsman in evil-made even more evil by his own dissim­ ulation. The most sustained example of feigned piety is found In the scene in which Buckingham attempts to convince the people that Richard should become king. Speaddng from a 47 balcony amd flanked on each side by bishops placed there as stage properties, Richard pretends total disinterest in the imperiaa theme. Holding a prayer book in his hamd, he sways the people by the beauty of his words and his humble inten­ sity. His rhetoric is poetic: "Yet so much is my poverty of spirit, / So mighty and so many ray defects, / As I had rather hid€ me from ray greatness;" and aigain, "The royal tree hath left us royal fruit, / Which, mellow'd by the stealing hours of time, / Will well become the seat of majesty." He solidifies his position with this pious statement:

Alas, why would you heap these cares on me? I am Tinfi't for state and majesty: I do^be^seech you, take it not amiss; I cannot nor I will not yield to you. (Ill, vii, 204-207)

Finally he yields to the will of the people. "Since you will buckle forttme on my back, / To bear her burthen, whether I will or no, / I must have patience to endure the load." The climauc of this sham, the coronation of Richard, is due to the skilled use of rhetoric. Richard's fertility of resource is equated by his decisiveness of action. Edward's burial has hardly ended when Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan are imprisoned and given the death sentence. Hastings follows his rivals in death Just in time for the news of his execution "to add an extra flavor o to Richard's dish of strawberries at dinner."

"Frederick S. Boas, Shakespere amd His Predecessors (London, 1939), pp. 152-153. " " 48

As Hastings's head is borne in to Richard, he ex­ claims hypocritically: "So dear I loved the mam, that I must weep. / I took him for the plainest haunaless creature / That breathed upon this earth a Christian," As he must get the approval of the mayor and the citizens, he adopts the familiar role of the guileless person who suspects no evil in amybody else since he has none in his own life. Adding to the numerous verbal techniques which Richard uses to reveal his own character is the ^TWHsdonic pleasiire which he derives from characterizing himself while seeming to accuse others. His half-hearted attempt to alle­ viate yoimg Prince Edward's melancholy occasioned by the ar­ rest of the youth's uncle. Earl Rivers, is full of deceit and generalizations. Richard ironically "comforts" him with a generalization which comes (as he implies) from a superior knowledge of a deceitful world.

Sweet prince, the imtainted virtue of your years Hath not yet dived into the world's deceit: Nor more can you distinguish of a man Than of his outward show; which, God he knows. Seldom or never Jumpeth with the heau?t. Those uncles which you want were dangerous; Your grace attended to their siigar'd words. But look'd not on the poison of their heau?tst God keep you fz*om them, amd from such faULse friends! (Ill, i, 7-15)

This passage is am example of Richard's manipulating truth into deception. "Assuredly he takes a perverse pleasure in seeming to accuse others while actually stamping himself the ^ 49 vUlaln that he is.*' Richard further is characterized by the imagery which other characters employ in describing him. In scathing epi* thets, "elvish-markM, abortive, rooting hog," "son of hell," •loathed issue of thy father's loins," Margaret pours a flood of curses on him which he turns mockingly back on her head, "Poisonous bunch-back'd toad," "caoodemon," amd "bloody tyrant" reflect the repulsiveness which others feel concerning his appearance amd actions. Richmond describes him as a boaa*: '"The wretched, bloody, andjusurping boar / . . . this foul swine*" ^e^ revolting animed images have their functionaa role, for without the reader realijsing it, the continuous references to the animal characteristics of Hiciiard trans-* form his nature to brutal animal tendencies. In Richard IIIj ShaUoespeare, for the first time, uses imagery to serve in- 10 dividual characterisation. Rhetoric of persuasion is most evident in the second scene of the play in which Richard meets Anne as she is ac- ecn^panylng the corpse of her fatlier*in<»law to Ghertsey for biu:*ial» Since it is politioaLily expedient for Richard to woo, win, and wed Anne, his task, impossible as It may seem.

Q Horace Grady Moore, The Dramatic and Rhetorical Func- tions of Provearbial Materials in RepresgcTSailve Plays of ffiakespeare^ unpublished dissertation jTexas Tech, 1955J, p. 114. ^ 10 Clemen, Development of gtoakespeare's Imagery^ pp. 51-52»

TKXAS TKCHNOLOaCAL COLLEGE USBAiil LUMbOCiv. lEiAS 50 is "set out for him amd he delights in the challenge of a battle of wits. His wooing brilliamtly displays every facet of his evil genius. He mocks the Christiam virtues, to which he appeals in the same breath: "Lady, you know no rules of chau'ity, / Which renders good for bad, blessings for curses." Ke knows that her feelings are violent, that they are not based on solid principles of humam conduct, that violent feelings soon exhaust themselves, and that in the vacuum created by this loss one is likely to vacillate and is easily pers\iaded. All he has to do then is to stimulate her resent­ ment by appearing calm and unconcerned at her abuses, and permit her to vent her passions until there is no emotion left within her to protest his villainy. Richaa*d proves that he is a man who cam play with words Just as effectively as he cam play with people. Through flattery amd poetic ora­ tion, he courts her amd thotigh she gazes on him with scorn and even spits at him, a custom which was believed to be a 11 preventive against fascination, Richau*d knows that inwaa^ly she is relenting. Confident in his eventual success he bao^s his chest, hands her a sword, and implores her to let her lips be a woman's lips rather than using them in malediction of him:

Teach not thy lips such scorn, for they were made For kissing, lady, not for such contempt.

11 RichauTd the Third Variorum, p, 61. 51

~^ If thy revengeful heart cannot forgive, Lo, here I lend thee this sharp-pointed sword; Which if thou please to hide in this true bosom. And let the soul forth that adoreth thee, I lay it naked to the deadly stroke. (I, ii, 172-178)

He then admits it was he who killed King Henry and yo\mg Edward, but "'twas thy beauty that provoked me," "'twas thy heavenly face that set me on." As the blade falls from her hand we know that Richard has trixamphed. There is a complete chamge in tone amd diailogue, amd a few moments later she ac­ cepts with complete submission the ring which he offers her. Deceit amd hypocrisy can haa*dly z*eaoh higher than at this point, but Richard caps his churlish villadny by breaking into ecstatic self-congratulation the moment Anne leaves the stage:

Was ever woman In this humour woo'd? Was ever woman in this humour won? I'll have her; but I will not keep her long. (I, ii, 228-230)

y^ Needless to say, Richard does not always api^ear evil in the play. He can be the blusterer, the wit, the penitent, the hearty friend, the coimselor. He is brave amd adventur­ ous. His audacity, his self-confidence, and his courage never fail him. He cam seem a saint when in reality he is a devil; he clothes his "naked villainy with old odd ends stolen out of holy writ," All the wanton crimes for which he is responsible in his heartless climb to the crown are executed fearlessly amd even in the spirit of gaiety. His 52 amusement, when he is meditating the murder of his nephews, is expressed proverbially: "So wise so young, they say, do ne'er live long," amd "Short summers lightly have a forward spring." The epithets and iroi-iy with which he addresses Tyrrel: "Kind T^rrrel" and "gentle Tyrrel," "Dar'st thou resolve to kill a friend of mine?" further exemplify the dreadful, sustained sham of his deportment. Nor does his pleasantry forsake him when he considers some of his worst deeds, after he has committed them; for the terms in which he mentions them are that "The sons of Edward sleep in Abra- haun's bosom; / And Anne my wife hath bid the world good night," This is functional rhetoric serving a dual purpose: it enhances character delineation, and it arouses the de­ sired response through persuasion. With his accession to the throne, Richard loses in­ terest in the entire imdertaking, "So now prosperity begins to mellow / And drop into the rotten mouth of death" (IV, iv, 1-2). (jPhe brilliancy distinguishing Richard's villainy lies in the offensive struggle; when it becomes a matter of de­ fense to retain what has been won, he loses much of his in­ centive amd business acuity. The first mention of Richard's avenger comes when Stanley anno\mces that "Dorset is fled to Richmond." ^Hiis deflection amd its consequences cause Richau:*d to become moody amd melamcholic. He gives a command, then rescinds it; he slaps one of the messengers before he cam relate the message; he vacillates in his decisions. From 53 this point on, Richard is on the decline. By'-en his language reveals a loss of spirit and diminution of effectiveness, with the possible exception of the scene with Elizabeth. There is a certain parallelism between the scene in which Richard woos the Lady Anne and the one in which he asks Elizabeth to intervene for him that he might taarry her daughter. The language is fraught with sarcasm, bitter irony, and frightful Innuendoes, Richard is now king; his train has been stopped by his mother, the Duchess of York, and Queen Elizabeth that they may curse him. He does not deny committing any of the atrocities of which they accuse him, but he does return the insult by telling the queen that he loves her datighter, Elizabeth, amd asks her to Intervene for him in his marriage suit. She recites his numerous crimes, and in t\irn Richard invokes the same technique which had proved successful with the Lady Anne: "Say that I did all this for love of her." The queen scornfully rejects this plea. A striking example of Richard's sheer effrontery amd resourcefulness in argument follows. Realizing that that tactic will not work, he tries another argument; he says that he repents, but since he cannot mend the past, he will mend the future.

If I did take the kingdom from your sons. To make amends, I'll give it to your daughter.... Yo\ir children were vexation to your youth. But mine shall be a comfort to yoia* aige. The loss you have is but a son being king. And by that loss your daughter is made queen. 54

I ^cannot make you what amends I would. Therefore accept such kindness as I can. (IV, iv, 294-310)

Then Richard turns to the dependable rhetoric of poetry and persimsion:

The liquid drops of tears that you have shed Shall come aigain, tramsform'd to orient peau»l, acquaint the princess With the sweet silent hours of mau?riage Joys. (IV, iv, 321-330)

To make this scene even more effective, ShaUcespeare uses the technique of stichomyth»ia for the sake of persuasion. This use of one line dialogue enhances the speed of the ac­ tion by the use of broken lines, sudden interruption, inter- 12 rogation, amd exclamation. The two parry back amd forth in quick one line repartee—the one to persuade, the other de­ termined not to i»elent. Richard uses every conceivable ar- 'gument as Just reason for Elizabeth to want her daughter to become his wife: K. Rich. Say, she shall be a high amd mighty queen. Q. Eliz. To wail the title, as her mother doth. K. Rich. Say, I will love her everlastingly. Q. Eliz. But how long shall that title 'ever^ last? K. Rich. Sweetly in force unto her fair life's end. Q* Eliz. But how long fairly shall her sweet life last? K. Rich. So long as heaven amd nature lengthens it. Q. Eliz. So long as hell and Richard likes of it. K. Rich. Saiy, I, her sovereign, am her subject love. Q. Eliz. But she, your subject, loathes such sovereignty. K. Rich. Be eloquent in my behalf to her. (IV, iv, 347-357)

12 Clemen, Development of Shakespeare's Imaigery, p. 253. 55

She challenges him to swear by something that he has not wronged. He has sinned against the world, his father's death, himself, God, the time to come, amd so she will not recognize as valid an oath sworn by amy of these. Finally, he calls upon his present good intention to repent amd de­ clares that the marriage will prevent ruin to the kingdom which cannot otherwise be avoided. He begs her to woo for him: "Plead what I will be, not what I have been; / Not my deserts, but what I will deserve," Elizabeth is not con­ vinced thoiigh she does promise to talk to her da\ighter, *»;fhen she leaves, Richard's perfidious natiire is emphasized by his contemptuous reflection: "Relenting fool, amd shallow, chamglng woman!" As in the cases of Clarence amd Anne when he has achieved his persuasive purposes, his honeyed words are converted into the disdainful, insolence of the intellec­ tual superior.^

Richard's loss of mental acumen is further emphasized by his encoimter with Richmond's forces. With his waning spirit and despondency it is inevitable that Richard will be overpowered. However, as long as Richard's energies cam find am outlet for activity, his will keeps him from entirely giving way, but when he is asleep the repressed forces of conscience teem within his mind. Richard denies conscience

•^Sister Miriam Joseph, Shakespeare's Use of the Arts, pp. 227-228, - 56 and honestly feels that it "is but a word that cowards use, / Devised at first to keep the strong in awe," Nevertheless, he is unable to drive away the remembrances of eleven murders in his subconscious mind. The dream Richard has the last night ties together the various threads of the story by summarizing his ruthless methods and reiterating Margaret's curses regarding his down­ fall. In the double dream scene both Richard and Richmond are onstage; each dreams only that part addressed to him. This structural device emphasizes the contrast between the villain amd the man of virtue who is to restore peace to England. To Richmond the dreams foretell success; to Richard 14 they strike terror to his soul. In his final soliloquy, Richard's irony is turned in­ ward upon himself:

I rather hate myself For hateful deeds committed by myself,' I am a villain: yet I lie, I am not. Fool, of thyself speak well: fool, do not flatter, (V, ill, 189-192)

Rhetoric finds new power in the nervous, broken rhythm; the inward mind of Richard achieves self-re cognition. It is mid­ night; "cold fearful drops" stand on his "trembling flesh," The self-analyzing villain argues that he should hate himself for all his evil deeds. He admits that he is a villain amd

14 Arnold Aerol, "The Recapitulation Dream in Richard III and Macbeth," Shakespeare Quarterly, VI (1955), p. 55. 57 then scolds himself for speaking ill of himself. At this point Richard is vacillating between self-condemnation and an attempt to build up his courage. Fear conquers, and at last he acknowledges the power of moral law: "My conscience hath a thousand severaa tongues, / And every tongue brings in a several tale, / And every tale condemns me for a vil­ lain." The horror of his isolation from humamity dawns upon him, and he shrieks: "I shall despair: Ihere is no creature loves me; / And if I die, no soul will pity me." He to whom love had always been foolishness clutches at it as he faces eternity, amd with a beseeching cry for pity his self-centered life disintegrates, ^e entire dream scene is functional rhetoric in that it is used to recapitulate the action of the drama and to connote the atmosphere underlying the dramatic action. Richard's manner of facing death is quite different from that of-Aaron the l^>or^ His sins of perjury and murder "throng to the bar, crying all. Guilty! guilty!" and causing despair whereas Aaron gloats over his innumerable villainous deeds amd laments that he could not commit more. In the face of death Richard relinquishes the role of villain; Aau*on, on the other hand, clings tenaciously to the role for which he was uniquely fitted—that of the Machiavelliam villain who lived amd died in the spirit of evil for evil's sake. The concentration of interest upon a single character gives to Richau?d III a dramatic unity that is lacking in 58

Shakespeare's eau^lier plays. This dramatic tmity is further enhanced by means of rhetoric used functionally—to delineate character, to reveal the underlying mood of the play, to in­ tensify the expression of emotion, amd above all to Induce the desired response by persuasion. CHAPTER IV REGAN

The underlying cause of evil, according to Shakespeare and other Ellzabetham thinkers, was the occurrence of a breach in the natural order of things.

Nature in Renaissance thinking is power, growth, gen­ eration. Left alone, it is chaos; combed, subdued, and directed by man's law and God's law, it is civilization amd order. A crime against nature is the most heinous of all crimes.1

Shakespeare's villains were villains by virtue of the fact that the commission of crimes against nature formed the core of much of their behavior. Aaron failed to recognize the sanctity of the kingdom, of marriage, and of moral law. His evilness was expressed in many ways: plotting to over­ throw the emperor, Saturninus; defiling the emperor's wife, Tamora; planning or executing the deaths of nine people; and scorning all religious authority even in the face of death. Since Richard had had an "unnatural birth," he flaunted all restrictions placed upon people governed by the natural order of the cosmos, Regan, the middle daughter of King Lear, is another exaunple of one who effects chaos wherever she goes because she violates one of the primary laws of nature—filial

Craig, Complete Works of Shakespeare, p. 981.

59 60 gratitude. Marc Parrott says of Lear that in no other play "is the power of evil shown as am element of such tremendous force amd such utter ruthlessness. Evil in King Lear is «2 naked amd unashamed; it rages like some convulsion in nature. Regan, aided by her sister Goneril and Edmund, the illegiti­ mate son of Gloucester, is the power motivating the unleash­ ing of these evil forces, Regam's first speech occurs in the opening scene in Which Lear has decided to divide his kingdom in accordamce with the professions of love made by each of his three daugh­ ters, Goneril, the first to answer, pleases Lear with her glib, artificial response, Regam, in turn, professes:

Sir, I am made Of the self-same metal that my sister is. And prize me at her worth. In my true heart I find she naunes my very deed of love; Only she comes too short: that I profess Itself an enemy to all other Joys, Which the most precious square of sense possesses; And find I aim alone felicitate In your dear highness' love, (I, 1, 70-78)

More of the substance of Regan's personality is revealed in this speech than would be supposed at first glance, Shake­ speare customarily delineates his villains in their first speech, usually a soliloquy, thereby affording the audience ^n early insight into their true character. In this first

Parrott, Shakespeare (New York, 1938), p. 776. 61 acquaintance with Regam the smooth rhetoric employed in her speech of love is made cold amd virulent by lack of real feel­ ing. She uses abstractions which neither weigh nor define. She talks about love in the abstract terminology of value: "I am made of that self-same metal that my sister is, / And prize me at her worth"--words which certainly do not prove 3 love but do reveal character, Regan is a follower and at this point can merely echo the sentiments of Goneril. They both speak in generaliza­ tions, which impress Lear but repel Cordelia and Kent, In­ sincerity and falsity are so palpable that it is surprising that Lear does not realize that the protestations are mere words motivated by greed. The expression, "Which the most precious square of sense possesses," is all affectation as is the use of "felicitate," Ihe rhetoric is functional, for it iTeveals character and it expands upon the underlying mood of the play—such open artificiality calls for chaos. In one respect Regan outdoes Goneril, Goneril re­ ferred to two squares: the first was eye-sight, space, lib­ erty and what could be valued rich and rare; the second square is grace, health, beauty, amd honor. But she says that she

Robert B. Heilman, Ihls Great Stage (Baton Rouge, 1948), p, 162. Hereafter cited as Heilman," Tills Great Stage, 4 Quoted by H, H, Fumess, ed. King Lear Variorum (Philadelphia, I880), from Capell, p, 127 Hereafter cited as King Lear Variorum, 62

'^loves the king no less tham these; therefore, she loves these as much as she does the king. This is the point wherein Regam says she falls short of Goneril, The second square is of the superlative kind of Joys; Regan professes to be am enemy of these and declares that the only Joy of this square 5 which she values is the love of her father. She is rewarded for her proficiency in the "glib amd oily art" by receipt of a third of the kingdom plus half of that which had been in­ tended for Cordelia, As Cordelia leaves in disgrace and in the disfavor of Lear, she implores Goneril and Regam to treat their father well. The true character of the older sisters is illustrated by Regan's sarcastic reply employing the device of anastrophe: "Prescribe not us our duties." Their hatred of advice is proportional to their hypocritical pretensions to do right. This blatant hypocrisy aimed at Cordelia and France adds to 6 their odiousness. As soon as Regan and Goneril are left alone, their pattern of speech changes perceptibly. They drop from verse to prose and in a very rationalistic manner survey their slt\iation. Under no illusions about their good fort\ine, they engaige in an analysis of Lear which is so detached that it

^Smith, King Lear Variorum, p, 12,

Hazlitt, King Lear Variorum, p, 422, 63 borders on the scientific' Their father is old amd suscep­ tible to rash amd unwise Judgments; the waywardness of his age Is apt to provoke additional "unconstamt starts" as wit­ nessed by the recent banishment of his long-time servant, Kent. They view age entirely in terms of its effect on them. Whereas Goneril is ready for immediate action to divest Lear of all authority, Regan prefers to defer action and "further think on 't." Regan and Cornwall arrive at Gloucester's castle for a visit and are Infonaed of the purported villainy of Glou­ cester's son, Edgar. Her salutation to Gloucester denotes imfeminine violence: "all vengeance comes too short / Which I cam pursue the offender," She uses the accident of Edgar's involvement in Edmund's plot as an occasion to sneer at her father: "What, did my father's godson seek your life? / He whom my father named?" She then attempts to associate the accused mam, Edgar, with the knights of her father's train, for she is determined to find some excuse for refusing to re­ ceive amd entertain them. When Comwall offers an explamation for their visit, Regam snatches the speech out of her husbamd's mouth, and in one of the few images which she employs in the entire play she lays the foundation upon which their villainous plots will gradually be developed. 7 Heilman, This Great Stage, p. 139. 64

Comwall: You know not why we came to visit you Regam: Thus out of season, threading dark-eyed night: Occasions, noble Gloucester, of some poise. Wherein we must have use of your advice: . , , , Our good old friend. Lay comforts to your bosom; and bestow Your needful counsel to our business. Which craves the instant use, (II, 1, 120-129)

Employing the devices of imagery, zeugma, and epi the ton, she enlists the services of Gloucester in their cause. Through persuasion and flattery she makes Gloucester feel needed amd appreciated—a formula certain to succeed with a man who has Just discovered that his natural son was plotting his death. At a time when he is filled with despair, Regam subtly re­ stores to him a will to live. The savage tendencies in Regan's nature are emphasized in the scene in which Kent, Lear's messenger, is placed in the stocks upon Cornwall's orders to be kept there till noon. Using amdiplosis Regam is able to equate stylistic rhetoric with functional rhetoric: "Till noon! till night, my lord; amd all night too." Not only does the speech serve to paint the vindictive disposition of Regam, but it also serves to 8 regulate draunatic time. Kent protests such maltreatment: "Why, madam, if I were your father's dog, / You should not

8 In the following scene when Lear arrives at Glou­ cester's castle amd finds Kent in the stocks, it is feasible to the audience that enough time has lapsed for the scene to close with the actual approach of 'night.' Shakespeare makes a whole day pass during a single scene and dialogue; yet all seems naturaUL amd consistent due to the insertion of this one line. 65

use me so" to which Regam makes the virulent retort: "Sir, being his knave, I will." The emotional tone is intensified through the use of epi the ton amd parallelism. Gloucester comes to Kent's aid, but Comwall and Regan insult their host by ignoring his pleas for mercy. When Lear arrives at Gloucester's castle, he is sur­ prised at the brazen effrontery displayed toward his messenger, but he is even more upset by the "sharp-tooth»d unkindness" which Goneril has shown him causing him to leave her castle amd to seek Regan's guardianship instead. Regam advises her father to ask the forgiveness of his eldest daughter, but he absolutely refuses to do this. She rudely upbraids him for his childish behavior, and, feeling no sympathy for her father's condition, she cuts him off abruptly: "Good sir, no more; these are unsightly tricks: / Return you to my sis­ ter." Regan takes up the debate with Lear in much the same iamguage Goneril used.

0, sir, you are old; Nature in you stands on the very verge Of her confine: you should be ruled and led By some discretion, that discerns yo\ir state Better than you yourself.^ (II, iv, 148-152)

$he adds, "I pray you, father, being weak, seem so" (II, iv, 204)—that is, agree with us. And further, "For those that Bilngle reason with your passion / Must be content to think 66 you old, and so—" (11, iv, 236-237), Age is to her merely an instrument to use to satisfy her own ends. She denies that age has dignity or deserts or that it even has a place 9 in Nature. In only one line does Regam show amy religious con­ sciousness; otherwise, she is a passive character in this respect, neither alluding to the presence of deities nor denying their existence. When Lear has called down light­ nings from heaven in a curse upon Goneril, Regan exclaims: "0 the blest gods! so will you wish on me, / When the rash mood is on." This, however, can haurdly be interpreted as a mortal's falling back upon higher powers for support; ob­ viously, Regam is In commamd of the situation. Her words then actiially become am instamce of simulated piety which is in accord with her general strategy of trying to put Lear in the wrong. A further confirmation of her nontheistlc view of life is found by comparing her view of the tragic flaw with the viewpoint of Edgar. He says, "The gods are Just, amd of our pleasant vices / Make instruments to plagjue us" (V, ill, 170-171). Regan's ccmiparable lines are ". . .to wilful men / The injuries that they themselves procure / Must be their schoolmasters" (II, iv, 305-307). Where Edgar recognizes the authority of divine Jus­ tice, Regam reduces the concept of divine retribution to

^Heilman, This Great Stage, pp. l40-l4l. 67 naturaLlistic terms. Her philosophy is that one learns through his mistakes—sometimes with tragic results. Her attitude can be summarized proverbially: the burnt child 10 will dread the fire. The scene involving Lear, Goneril, and Regan is es­ pecially rich in rhetorical terms. The rhetoric in this scene shows that when Regam is the most noxious, her lamguage is most effective. In ordinal^ clrcumstamces she is unimagi­ native, but on those occasions evoking unnatural behavior she is superb in rhetorical skill. Again am attempt is made to measiire abstractions in material terms, but the irony lies in the fact that this time it is Lear who is being divested of his retinue of one hundred followers. The daughters apply the fallacy against him and subject him mercilessly to the same treatment by which he deprived Cordelia of her rightful inheritance, Lear, who had wanted to make a practical appli­ cation of vauLues to things imrelated to practicality, now learns that in some areas such an application is inadvisable amd even intolerable. He realizes that quamtifloation is irrelevant; the value of his retinue is symbolic—denoting his status, his position emeritus. Mercilessly, like wolves urging each other on, they strip him of his hundred, then fifty, then twenty-five, and then five followers until even the need of one is questioned. This divestment begins with

10 Heilman, This Great Stage, p. 273. 68

Regan's use of the figure pysma, the device of asking many questions requiring diverse answers for the purpose of pro­ voking the addressee:

What, fifty followers? Is it not well? What should you need of more? Yea, or so many, sith that both charge and danger Speak 'gainst so great a number? How, in one house. Should many people, under two commands. Hold amity? "Tis hard; almost impossible. (II, iv, 240-245)

Without giving Lear a chance to reply, Goneril heaps more questions on him. Lear expresses his disillusionment by say­ ing, "I gave you all," to which Regan immediately interrupts, "And in good time you gave it" (lI, iv, 253). ^is last ut­ terance exemplifies Shakespeare's increasing skill in powers of condensation. Here he compresses an amazing wealth of associations into one sentence: Regan's wolfishness of heart is expressed; her venomous sarcasm again emphasizes her vil­ lainous character; and there is evident growth in the selfish ferocity of the two daughters. This power of compression is evident also in Regan's next line: "What need one?" She is willing to take away from Lear all vestiges of authority and all those things which he considers necessary for one of his station. Lear expostulates that if we are to live above the level of animals, something more than the bare necessities 11 of subsistence must be ours.

John M, Lothian, King Lear: A Tragic Reading of ULfe (Toronto, 1949), p. 35r^ 69

Another example of bestial ferocity occurs in the scene in which Gloucester is deemed a traitor for showing kindness to Lear, Gloucester is brought in by Cornwall's men, Regan addresses him spitefully: "Ingrateful fox! 'tis he," As he is bound, Regam urges: "Hard, hard, 0 filthy traitor!" When he is tied to the chair and cannot move, she affronts him by plucking his beard and saying: "So white, and such a traitor!" Concurrent with this physical humilia­ tion, Regan and Comwall subject Gloucester to an exhaustive interrogation: "To whose hands have you sent the lunatic king?"—an epithet showing her utter contempt for her father; "Where hast thou sent the king?" and three times the question "Wherefore to Dover?" is hammered at the helpless earl, Regan becomes crueller than Comwall in the subsequent blind­ ing of Gloucester. "One side will mock amother; the other too," She becomes incensed when a servant dares to stand up and fight for his master, amd she grabs a sword and stabs him in the back. The irony of the entire scene is that the epithets aimed at her victims describe the speaker more ade­ quately tham they do the person to whom they are addressed, Regan is definitely an "ingrateful fox," a "filthy traitor," and she exhibits extreme hypocrisy in that she has violated Natiu'e to a more serious degree than the servamt. But cruelty is not enough to satisfy this "pelican daughter." In total blindness Gloucester calls for Edmund, and Regan replies: 70

Out, treacherous villain! Tliou call'st on him that hates thee: it was he That made the overture of thy treasons to us; Who is too good to pity thee, (III, vii, 87-90) She caps this exquisite performance in cruelty by Jeering at him even as he faces her, blinded amd bleeding, "Go thrust him out at gates, and let him smell / His way to Dover," Of dramatic necessity Regam must at this point assume a different role, Comwall has been killed, and she no longer has him or Goneril to initiate the villainy which it has been her role thus far merely to echo. The chamge from passivity to aiggressiveness is one for which she is unsuited; it is difficult for her to alter the pattern of conduct which has already been established. Regam, in attempts at persuasion, is not nearly so successful as the villains studied previously. In her en- coxmter with Oswald, Goneril's steward, she tries to persuade him to let her read the message he Is carrying to Edmund, Her lamguage has none of the subtlety of lago nor the humil­ ity amd flattery of Richard III, She speaks in a straightfor­ ward manner with little success; when that fails, she resorts to more womanly wiles: "I'll love thee much, / Let me unseal the letter," Uhable to pry any Information from Oswald, 12 whose one virtue is his intense loyalty to Goneril, Regan

12 Robert M. Snith. "A Good Word for Oswald," A Tribute to George Coffin T&ylor (Chapel Hill, 1952), pp. 65-55";; IFT" Sejnuel jolinson amd George L. Klttredge also subscribe to this view. 71 then tells him that she is affiamced to Edmund, amd in am anastrophe (inverted word order) she bids him advise Goneril thuslyi "desire her call her wisdom to her," In other words, in her own cold, shrewd, penetrating virulence she is warning her sister to give up all thought of Edmund, The rhetoric of persuasion in this scene, though it fails to achieve the desired end, is highly functional since the basic function of Regan's lamguage is primarily to in­ terpret her character and actions. Dramatic consistency de­ mands that she lose her rhetorical effectiveness in the encounter with Oswald, It would be surprising if Regam, who has always accomplished her villainous purposes without ag­ gression, should succeed in her first attempt in independent thinking. It would be even more inconsistent if she should succeed in persuading one with Oswald's tenacious view of loyalty to be disloyal. In broad terms of drama, then, Regan's failure in persuasion is quite functional. Her failure at this time seems to bolster her \m- naturalness. Goneril approaches Edmund with those "strange oeilllads and most speaking looks" which infuriates Regam with Jealousy, The two become beastly amd ferocious, turn­ ing the venom with which they have poisoned others through­ out the play upon each other. It would, however, be incred­ ible that either of these sisters, who are very much alike and who know each other very well, should rhetorically out- iflt the other. The failure here is wholly in keeping with 72

Renaissamce awareness that rhetoric Is a Janus who cam be outfaced only by those who are acquainted with both faces. The Jealousy which controls Regan's every thought is stressed in the next scene in which she attempts to discern from Edmund the relationship between him and Goneril, She has no confidence in trying to deceive him by the same tricks she has used previously. Her bluntness in inquiry: "Tell me—but truly— / Do you not love my sister?" followed by, "But have you never found my brother's way / To the forfended place?" and "I am doubtful that you have been conjunct / And bosom'd with her, as far as we call hers " is perhaps the in­ evitable consequence of the habit of living as a monster, a consequence which dooms one's efforts to be human, Regam's endeavor to ensnare Edmund is entirely natural. The means which she employs to accomplish this are limited in that the role of "natural" behavior is relatively new to her. In contrast, Goneril's lust for Edmund adds to her monstrosity, since she has a living husband, and in order to get Edmund she must first eliminate Albany, They argue over which one will have Edmund as her hus­ band, but the argument is rather short-lived—as are the two sisters. Goneril poisons Regan amd then commits suicide. As Regan is dying, her interest is self-centered. Albany has challenged Edmxmd, whereupon Edgar enters to become Albany's champion. Though her betrothed is liable to be Icilled in this match, Regan shows no concem for him. She 73 bemoans: "Sick, 0, sick!" amd "My sickness grows upon me," She feels no remorse over her villainous role played upon the staige of life, and she dies without pity, Regam, like Richard III and Aaron, is am opportunist. She is, however, quite different from them in some respects. In the first place, she does not openly purpose to be a vil­ lain. Whereas the male Villains soliloquize and boast of their evil deeds, Regam never brags about her behavior; it is simply her course in life. She never speadcs in monologue; therefore, her actions and her speech always relate to her interaction with other characters, Regam does not motivate action as most villains do.

That Regan did not commit adi^ltery, did not murder her sister or plot to murder her husband, did not Join her name with Edmxmd's on the order for the deaths of Cordelia and Lear, and in other respects failed to take quite so active a part as Goneril in atrocious wickedness, is quite true but not in the least to her credit. It only means that she had much less force, courage amd initiative tham her sister, and for that reason is less formidable amd more loathsome.13

The role which rhetoric has assumed in the development of this villain is basically to reveal character and to en­ hance the atmosphere of the play, Regan's rhetoric is more an interpretation of her mind and action than an instrument of persiiasion. Ironically, as in the case of Aaron, when she

*^A, C, Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy (New York, 1949), p. 299. Hereafter cited as Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, 74 becomes naturalT as evidenced by her desire for a husbamd and the accompanying lust, rhetoric fails. She has mastered enough rhetoric to promote the villainous deeds which damn her but not enough to save her when she is moved by naturaJL desire. CHAPTER V lAGO

lago is another of Shakespeare's characters who is a master of intrigue and innuendo as well as a skillful dialec­ tician. He represents the culmination in the development of the Machiavellian-type character which had its inception in Aaron and continued with Richard III. He possesses many of the traits of the typical villain of the Elizabethan period: egoism, guile, cruelty, faithlessness, remorselessness, cyni­ cism, delight in Intrigue, boastfulness of evil deeds and thoughts, use of one person to destroy another, and inex­ haustible resources coupled with untiring energy. The main difference between lago and his predecessors in villainy lies in the subtlety of his method and the proficiency which he has attained in the use of rhetoric. Stoll compares the three Machlavels thusly:

The essential difference between him /Tago/ and the earlier representatives of the type lies in the subtlety of the outlines. The violence of Richard and Aaron is here dissembled: to look at him this Machiavel is no lion at all, but wholly fox. Here is none of Aaron's bluster, and yet none of Richard's slime, lago fum­ bles no prayer-book, keeps no compamy with bishops, admits indeed that he is but a man among men, and speaking of Roderigo, confesses, as if he were no bet­ ter than he should be, that with the little godliness I have I did full hard forbear him, , , , There is almost as much human nature in him as i stage villainy, and a highly individual tone as well.

Elmer Edgar Stoll, Shakespeare Studies (New York, 1942), p, 383. Hereafter cited as Stoll, Shakespeare Studies. 75 76

[7*~ The character of lago has been maligned by many crit­ / ics who charge that there was no motivation for his "motive­ less malignity," and, consequently, he is a creation of sub- human evil, an embodiment of Satan himself. Others contend that he was Justified in his actions by the fact that he was unfairly deprived of promotion, that he was really cuckolded by Othello, or that he found it necessary to act as if one or both of these possibilities were true, and somehow found him­ self doing wrong in spite of himself.^

\ The principal function of lago's rhetoric in the first act is persuasion and character revelation. When the play^ I opens, Roderigo is angrily rebuking lago for deceiving him. The true relationship between the two men is shown in the first speech: "I take it much unkindly / That thou, lago, who hast had my purse / As if the strings were thine, shouldst know of this," lago's first task is to appease Roderigo and! convince him that he hates Othello and had no part in effect­ ing the marriage between the Moor and Desdemona. He does

John Jay Chapman, A Glance Toward Shakespeare (Bos­ ton, 1922), p, 47; Lytton Strachey, Characters and"ngoimnen- taries (New York, 1935), PP. 295-296; E, E. Stoll, Shakespeare and Other Masters (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 231, 246, •^Tucker Brooke, "The Romantic lago," Yale Review, VII (1918), pp, 3-59; Frank P, Rand, "The Over Garrulous lago," Shakespeare Quarterly. I (1950), p, 158; Hoover H. Jordan, "Dramatic illusion In Othello," Shakespeare Quarterly, I (1950), pp, 146-152; George L, Klttredge, ed,, OthelTo (New York, 194l), p, x; and Thomas D, Bowman, "A Further Study in the Characterization and Motivation of lago," College English, IV (1943), pp. 460-469 agree that lago did have sufficient motivation for his actions. 77 this by matching his diction with the bombastic euphulstlc language patterns of Roderigo*s speech. His rhetoric abounds in conscious, studied devices which are used for the sole purpose of duping Roderigo and convincing him that he is worthy of his continued friendship with him, lago's second speech exemplifies this skill in rhetorical usage; he tells Roderigo that he hates Othello because he promoted Cassio, a less experienced soldier than lago, to the lieutenancy. With sarcasm intended to excite Roderigo's sympathy, lago describes Cassio as a Florentine,

A fellow almost damn'd in a fair wife; That never set a squadron in the field. Nor the division of a battle knows More than a spinster; unless the bookish theoric. Wherein the toged consuls can propose As masterly as he: mere prattle, without practice. Is all his soldiership. But he, sir, had the election: And I, of whom his eyes had seen the proof At Rhodes, at Cyprus and on other grounds Christian and heathen, must be be-lee'd and calm'd By debitor and creditor: this coimter-caster. He, in good time, must his lieutenant be. And I—God bless the mark!—his Moorship's ancient, (I, 1, 21-33)

The epithets, "Florentine" and "counter-caster," coupled with the phrase, "Mere prattle, without practice," belittle Cas­ sio 's ability until Roderigo is convinced that lago was de­ serving of the promotion. The use of the antitheses, "Christian and heathen" and "debitor and creditor," empha­ sizes the difference between the two positions, lieutenant and "his Moorship's ancient," a sly denotation of racial 78

dlfferen"ces. In one spee'ch lago has appeased Roderigo with his glib rhetoric; now the task remains for him to regain his confidence—and his purse. Realizing that he has duped Roderigo, lago then reverts to the use of synchoresis, the device of appealing to the listener's ego by asking him to be the Judge: "Now, sir, be Judge yourself, / Whether I in any Just term am affined / To love the Moor." With shrewd, psychological insight, lago realizes that the most effective way of persuading Roderigo is to "confide" in him, to reveal his innermost thoughts. He tells him, "We cannot all be masters, nor all masters / Cannot be truly follow'd," He has nothing but contempt for the "duteous, knee-crooking knave" who serves his master for "nought but provender;" but the man who serves others only to line his own coat is a man after his own heart, a man with soul. In rhetoric which is functional since it clearly defines the character trait of egotism, lago continues:

Were I the Moor, I would not be lago: In following him, I follow but myself; Heaven is ray Judge, not I for love and duty. But seeming so, for my peculiar end: For when my outward action doth demonstrate The native act and figure of my heart In compliment extern, 'tis not long after But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve For daws to peck at: I am not what I am. (I, 1, 57-65)

The key to an understanding of lago's character Is the con­ trast of appearances, that which seems to be true, and of 79

reality, "I am not what I am" conveys an ominous note of warning to the audience. Later he expresses the same idea in imaglstic language: "I must show out a flag and sign of love, / Which is indeed but sign," and again the theme of \ appearance versus reality is emphasized in his observation of Cassio's behavior: "Men should be what they seem'.' \. The role of Roderigo in the first scene is essentially to emphasize lago's skill in deceit and his adaptability to the people and circumstance at hand. His practice of the art of dissimulation on one with Roderigo's moral and intellec­ tual shortcomings illustrates his technical competence as manipulator. With his gull, lago can be off-guard amd does not need to be as clever as he would in dealing with Othello or another of more acute sensibilities. Much cam be learned of lago's character when he is allowed to converse with his mask removed, Roderigo has Just confessed his fondness for Desdemona but admits that he lacks the "virtue to amend it." In an allegory lago expounds upon the ethics of selfishness, "Virtue! a fig! 'tis in ourselves that we are thus or thus. Our bodies are our gardens, to the which our wills are gar­ deners" (I, ill, 322), He develops the metaphor by use of balance and antithesis to illustrate the power of the will: "If the balance of our lives had not one scale of reason to poise another of sensuality, the blood and baseness of our natures would conduct us to most preposterous conclusions," Reason should control all kinds of lust, including that kind 80

^called love. The grossness of lago's treatment of Roderigo further reveals the contempt he holds for his intellectual inferiors. When lago realizes that he is converting Roderigo to his senses, he changes the tone of his speech from that of pro­ saic sententiae to one of base practicality. He insists that Roderigo should forget all ideas of drowning himself "for the love of a guinea-hen" and follow lago's suggestion:

Put money in thy purse,., I say, put money in thy purse, It camnot be that Desdemona should long continue her love to the Moor—put money in thy purse—nor he his to her,,,Put but money in thy purse. These Moors are changeable in their wills. Pill thy purse with money ,,,She must have change, she must. Therefore put money in thy purse.,. Make all the money thou canst.. .There­ fore make money, A pox of drowning thyself! . , . Thou art sure of me. Go, make money, (I, ill, 345-371)

The repetition of this persuasive refrain gives added im­ petus to the dramatic intensity of the situation and repre­ sents the use of diatyposis, a figure employed to commend to another certain rules and principles which will benefit him. Crude as this is, Roderigo is completely charmed by the hammering insistence: "I am changed: I'll go sell all my land," The necessity of boasting of his intellectual superi­ ority again overwhelms lago.

^Robert B, Heilmam, "The Economics of laigo and Others," Publications of the Modern Language Association, L3CVIII (1953), 81

Thus do I ever make my fool my purse; For I mine own gain'd knowledge should profane. If I would time expend with such a snipe. But for my sport and profit, (I, ill, 389-392)

lago's skill in dissimulation is also evidenced in his first Interchange with Othello in which he protests his great indignation that anyone should have spoken disparagingly 5 of his commander. He appears solicitous about the safety of the Moor as they are approached by the irate Brabamtio and his friends. He swears by Janus, which is a piece of effec­ tive irony in that it is quite fitting that he should swear by the god with two faces. In the closing soliloquy of Act I the most comprehen­ sive survey of lago's character and his method of ensnare- ment is disclosed.

I hate the Moor; And it is thought abroad, that 'twixt my sheets He has done my office: I know not if 't be true; But I, for mere suspicion in that kind. Will do as if for surety. (I, ill, 392-396)

\ Thus a third motive is added to lago's list of grievances I against Othello: the suspicion that he has violated lago's bed. This is not merely a phantasy on lago's part; for later in the play Emilia refers to an incident which caused lago

Clarence V. Boyer, The Villain as Hero in Ellzabethapi Tragedy (London, 1914), p. T^. Hereafter cited as Boyer, T rnpTe viljAin as Hero.^ 82

to suspect her relationi~with the Moor. The importamt con­ sideration is that, true to character, lago does not become Jealous but resolves upon punishment, lago's obvious con­ tempt for women amd virtue, coupled with his belief that all men are goverr^d by their passions, precludes any displaiy of passionate Jealousy. However, the suspicion that he has been cuckolded is as good a cause for action as if he really had been, for the only way to hvirt laigo is to wound his pride. This injury furnishes the iimnediate stimulus for his resent­ ment in losing the lieutenancy and in the scamdal concerning 6 Emilia's inconstancy. Perhaps the leading motive, and the one which has been \ overlooked by mamy critics, is lago's desire to Justify his own egotistical principles. "Cassio*s a proper mam: let me see now: / To get his place and to plume up my will / In / double knavery." What better way could he find to "plume up" his will than to find some means to satisfy his thwau*ted sense of superiority?

What fuller satisfaction could it find than the con­ sciousness that he is the master of the General who haui xmdejrvalued him and of the rival vtho has been preferred to himi that these worthy people, who are so successful amd popular amd stupid, are mere puppets in his hamds, but living puppets, who at t^ie motion of his finger must contort themselves in agony, while all the time they - believe that he is their one true friend smd comforter?*

6„ Boyer, The Villain as Hero, pp. 122-123. '^Bradley, Sh^kespoax^an Tragedy, p. 229. 83

At this point laigo^s only proposed villainy is to obtain Cassio's position amd to strike back at Othello by arousing his Jealousy. Yet, harmless as these objectives seem, an ominous note of foreboding is attached to the soliloquy in its last lines: "It is engender'd. Hell and night / Must bring this monstrous birth to the world's light." In imagery designed to reveal the sinister workings of lago's mind, the audience is warned of impending disaster by the selection of the words engender'd. hell and night, and monstrous which com­ bine to show lago's alliance with the devil. Thus in the first act lago has been characterized through his rhetoric as an egotist, a dissembler, and a mas­ ter dialectician. This ability to turn improbability into certainty is exercised again when it becomes necessary for lago to persuade Roderigo that Cassio is an illicit rival for the favors of Desdemona and should be eliminated. This is a more difficult task than that of merely re-directing Roderigo »s thinking. For his plan against Cassio to succeed there must be some action, and the safest and most effective course is to Involve Roderigo and Cassio in a fight between themselves. Through the device of anthypophora, asking and answering one's own questions, lago poisons his gull against Othello by paint­ ing a distorted picture of him.

Mark me with what violence she first loved the Moor, but for bragging and telling her fantastical lies: and will she love him still for prating? , , ,Her eye must be fed; and what delight shall she have to look on the devil? (II, 1, 223-228) 84

He then reiterates~Othello's shortcomings—his appearance, his age, his lack of manners and delicate tastes. When Des­ demona tires of her husband, "who stands so eminent in the degree of this fortune as Cassio does?" By intensifying the modifiers applied to Cassio, he strengthens his position with Roderigo: "a knave very voluble," "a slipper and subtle knave," "a devilish knave," climaxed by "a pestilent complete knave." lago perverts ordinary circumstances to serve his own purposes. When Cassio kissed Desdemona's hand, Roderigo recognized it as an act of courtesy, but lago asserts that it was an act of lechery. "They met so near with their lips that their breaths embraced together." Roderigo is thus pressed into action by lago's deceit. The disillusioning of

Roderigo is lago's preliminary workout to the soul-destroying 8 of Othello. The second soliloquy is more vigorous and Indicates that lago has been able to Improve his version of the wrong dealt him by the Moor. Instead of the uncertain "And it is thought abroad.,," now lago states emphatically: "For that I do suspect the lusty Moor / Hath leap'd into my seat; the thought whereof / Doth, like a poisonous mineral, gnaw my inwards," He vows to get even with him "wife for wife," or if that falls he intends to put the Moor "into a Jealousy so

8 Thomas D, Bowman, "A Further Study in the Characteri­ zation and Motivation of lago," College English, IV (1942- 1943). p. 465. 85

Strong / Tliat Judgment cannot cure," The rest of the play is devoted to the execution of his plan; almost immediately lago, the opportunist, moving step by step, does practice on Othello's "peace and quiet / Even to madness." lago's next task of persuasion involves Cassio, He must convince the deposed lieutenant that "reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving" (II, ill, 268-271). Assuring him that he can regain his position by talking to the general since the punishment was "more in policy than in malice," lago assijmes the role of confidante and adviser. Since Cas­ sio is reluctant to do this, lago then advises him to talk to Desdemona inasmuch as the "general's wife is now the general." Cassio responds to his arguments wholeheartedly, "You advise me well," and unwittingly becomes another puppet to be mamipulated and controlled by the exigencies of the plot. Thereupon in soliloquy lago reveals his evil scheme.

And what's he then that says I play the villain? When this advice is free I give and honest, . , . How am I then a villain To counsel Cassio to this parallel course. Directly to his good? Divinity of hell! When devils will the blackest sins put on. They do suggest at first with heavenly shows. As I do now: for whiles this honest fool Plies Desdemona to repair his fortunes And she for him pleads strongly to the Moor, I'll pour this pestilence into his ear. That she repeals him for her body's lust; And by how much she strives to do him good, ; — She shall \mdo her credit with the Moor. (II, ill, 342-365) 86

This speech is~exceptionally functional in that it binds several patterns of imagery into structurally significant themes: the contrast of black amd white, the opposition of heaven and hell, the appearance theme, the contrast of the wise and the foolish, the theme of sexuality, and images of poisoning and the body.

The acme of lago's rhetorical villainy by persuasion occurs in Act III in which he convinces Othello that his pretty Venetian wife has been unfaithful to him. With the minor characters acting as pawns, lago manipulates the ac­ tion with uncanny skill. His ability to force other human beings to move unwittingly, or better still, unwillingly, according to his determination, gratifies his urge to "pliome up" his will. The methods he uses to achieve his aim are masterly. He attracts Othello's attention to Desdemona and Cassio with his exclamation, "Ha! I like not that," insinuating that there is something amiss in the relationship. lago does not intend at this point to move Othello to action; he merely wants to arouse his suspicions and make him susceptible to further onslaughts. By innuendo he adverts to Cassio's guilt: "I cannot think it, / That he would steal away so guilty-like. Seeing you cominp;" —Implying that there is cause for suspi­ cion. He bolsters this impression with "But for a satisfac­ tion of my thought; / No further harm"—suggesting that there is some harm. lago, by feigning reluctance, insinuates with 87

even more effectiveness that there is cause for Othello to suspect Cassio and Desdemona. This pretension of passing over a matter while telling it most strikingly is known as paralipsis, The technique which lago uses is familiar to Othello — the starts, stops, looks, insinuations, hesitances, and vocal inflections are all "tricks of custom," Ironically Othello recognizes them as such but is powerless to believe that lago, who is "full of love and honesty," could use them. He in­ terprets lago's actions as "close delations, working from the heart / That passion cannot rule," Throughout the scene lago's flair for histrionics pre­ vails. The key to his deception is that he is persuading at the same time that he seems not to be persuading at all. Using his reputation as "honest lago," he subjects the Moor to insinuations which chafe and become more powerful with time. He uses implication by hypothesis: "Utter my thoughts? Why, say they are vile and false," Implication by apparent limitation is evidenced in his speech: "I am to pray you, not to strain my speech / To grosser issues, nor to larger reach / Than to suspicion," He also employs generalizations:

9 Sister Miriam Joseph, Shakespeare's Use of the Arts, p. 139. 10 n, R, Ridley, Shakespeare's Plays: A Commentary (London, 1957), p. 162": ^ ^ ^ 88

That cuckold lives in bliss Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger; But, 0, what damned minutes tells he o'er Who dotes, yet doubts, suspects, yet strongly loves! (Ill, ill, 157-170)

The blatant hypocrisy of lago's advice is revealed to the audience as he generalizes on the pricelessness of a good name Just when he is getting ready to ruin another man's rep­ utation.

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord. Is the immediate Jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor Indeed. (Ill, ill, 156-161)

This dissimulation is further enhanced by lago's warning Othello to "beware of Jealousy; / It is the green-eyed mon­ ster which doth mock / The meat it feeds on." The biting irony is that lago is devoting his whole energy and intellect to arousing deadly Jealousy in Othello and then warns him to I 11 beware of It because it destroys its possessors, Othello disclaims any possibility of his becoming Jealous of Desdemona without ocular proof. It is then that the wily lago uses the argument most likely to succeed with the Moor—that of the unknown. Preying upon Othello's de­ ficiency in the social graces and his ignorance of custom, X&&0 points out that Desdemona is of a different race and "^^Lever, "Proverbs and Sententiae," p, I78. 89 nation: "In Venice they do let heaven see the pranks / They dare not show their husbands; their best conscience / Is not to leave 't undone, but keep 't unknown" (ill, ill, 202-204). Then he drives in the final wedge, "She did deceive her father, marrying you." Once Othello realizes that his lovely wife is capable of deceiving, he becomes the victim of lago's barbs and dissimulation. The seed of suspicion implanted in Othello's subconscious mind with the involuntary expression, "Ha! I like not that," has taken root and is to grow into a monstrous plant.

lago understands the psychology of a Jealous mind. "Trifles light as air / Are to the Jealous confirmations strong / As proofs of holy writ." He soliloquizes:

The Moor already changes with my poison; Dangerous conceits are, in their natures, poisons. Which at the first are scarce found to distaste. But with a little act upon the blood. Burn like the mines of sulphur, (III, ill, 325-329)

Othello has, indeed, undergone a tremendous change. He has become a raging animal imder the goadings of lago. He reacts as a Jealous husband should, but ironically in the process lago has overstepped his projected aim—to put the Moor into a Jealousy so strong that Judgment cannot cure'. He has activated more passion than he had anticipated amd in the course of events has incurred the anger of the Moor, With this unexpected twist, unforeseen by lago at the 90

inception of his villainy, he is forced as a matter of self- preservation to pursue his intrigue to its consummation. In order to save himself, Desdemona must be sacrificed, Othello's language shifts to the level of bestiality, yielding a great victory to the power of lago's rhetoric. He has allowed himself, a noble being, to be dehumanized until he is little more than a sensuous animal, lago has little difficulty in communicating at that base level with the Moor,

Were they as prime as goats, as hot as monkeys. As salt as wolves in pride, and fools as gross As ignorance made drunk. But yet, I say. If imputation and strong circumstances. Which lead directly to the door of truth. Will give you satisfaction, you may have 't. (Ill, ill, 403-4o8)

To give Othello the proof that he demands, lago now resorts to lying, though up to this point he has relied on insinuation and deceit. He aggravates Othello's fury by re­ lating to him with lustful flourishes the purported dream which Cassio had. With the Moor in the proper frame of mind, lago then ventures to mention the handkerchief, Othello has sacrificed his powers of reasoning in his Jealousy, and the handkerchief is seeming proof that lago is telling the truth. The torture of Othello is continued by hints, lies, and innuendoes until Othello works himself into such a pas­ sion that he falls into a trance. Again lago becomes the archmamipulator; he arranged for Othello to overhear his 91

"conversation with Cassio, Othello believes that it concerns Desdemona while in reality they are discussing the strumpet, Blanca. Every laugh of triumph and every expression of scorn is interpreted by the Moor as an insult to himself and to Desdemona. At last he is convinced that "this fair, sweet woman" is unfaithful. In his bemuddled state his syllogistic reasoning takes this form: an unfaithful wife should be punished; Desdemona is unfaithful; therefore, she must die. lago enhances the irony by suggesting that Othello suffocate her in the bed which she has contaimlnated. lago's villainy has by now assumed unexpected propor­ tions, but as a matter of self-preservation he must continue playing the role of a spider, weaving the threads which will enmesh in his deadly snare each of those who threatens his safety. To assure his success, both Roderigo and Cassio must be eliminated. lago senses that there is a possibility that some­ thing may go wrong. "This is the night / That either makes me or fordoes me quite." What he does not foresee is that it will be Emilia who causes his downfall. The great mani­ pulator was deficient as a strategist in three respects: (1) Othello's rage surpasses anything lago had anticipated, (2) he had not allowed for the possibility that Cassio might wear a protective vest, and, (3) he underestimated the loyalty of Emilia to her mistress. It never occurred to him that his wife's unselfish love of Desdemona could 92 rise above her fear of him, and in such ignorance of noble human motives lay his tragic error. He knows that she is garrulous: "Sir, would she give you so much of her lips / As of her tongue she oft bestows on me, / You'd have enough," Yet he trusts her with his secret, T^ere is genuine astonish­ ment in his outburst, "What, are you mad?" as he realizes that she intends to tell the truth about the handkerchief. Accustomed to having her heed his instructions, he gives her three stern commands before he perceives the hopeless situa­ tion he is in: "I charge you, get you home;" "Come, hold your peace;" and "Be wise, and get you home." He denies his duplicity even as Emilia reveals the extent of his villainy. His reaction is characteristic of his baseness. "Villanous whore!" and "Filth, thou liest!" are his last words to his wife as he stabs her to death. In the last scene lago faces death with stoical en­ durance. He realizes that his downfall was precipitated by his own weakness in strategy and not by the superior intellec­ tual accomplishments of his victims. Unlike Richard, who be­ seeches the mercy of God and Jesus as he awakens from his dream, lago has nothing to say on the subject. He has allied himself with the devils and their cause and has repeatedly placed the intellect above all other elements, and even in death he refuses to recognize the power of God. "Demand me nothing: what you know, you know: / Prom this time forth I never will speak word." lago has throughout the play retained 93 the self-command of a soldier; his refusal to speadc is char­ acteristic. Lodovico's reply "What, not to pray?" emphasizes this trait, and lago passes from the scene an enemy of God. His death is nobler than that of Aaron who died blaspheming and cursing "the day he did not some notorious 111."^^ In summary, lago's rhetoric is used principally for persuasion and character development. The facets of his language which have been commented on include his frequent use of generalizations and his ability to use rhetoric to control the thought and actions of the other characters. In his language he reveals a remarkable capacity for adapting it to any circumstance. Still another aspect of his lamgiiaige is his insistence that reason be placed above sensuality. Reason, however, does not always guide him, for the stimulus to his villainy lies in his sense of wounded pride. A few more observations may be made regarding the role of functional rhetoric in Othello: (l) lago is able to adapt his langiiage to the mood and sphere of the person to whom he is talking; (2) the recurring patterns of imagery- bestiality, theft, economics, and the sea—give breadth and scope as well as unity to the dramatic action; (3) lago's rhetoric Is often characterized by the use of prose; and (4) he is made more human than Aaron in that he has murmur- ings of conscience which Aaron never experienced.

12 Stoll, Shakespeare Studies, p. 394. 94

The versatility which lago shows in speaking is a trait heretofore unobserved in this study. He strives to achieve an effect upon the other characters by his choice of similes and images. When speaking to Roderigo, he assiimes the bombastic prose style of the gull. When talking to Montano, he switches from prose to verse using impressive 4. X. 14 terms from astronomy. In contrast, however, to Othello's language lago's seems static and unimaginative. This is highly functional rhetoric since it is consistent with his characterization; lago is not a person with an imaginative mind—he approaches life with a rational amd speculative out­ look, Clemen states that the use of imagery is not natural to lago since he rarely uses it when he is alone. He further describes lago's language as the use of conscious, studied devices "constructed" before their utterance with an eye to 15 the effect they will achieve upon their hearer. lago's speech is further individualized by the pre­ dominance of low bestial Images, As in the case of Regan,

^Examples of this are: "O villamous! I have looked upon the world for four time seven years; and since I could distinguish betwixt a benefit and an injury, I never found man that knew how to love himself" (I, ill, 312) and "Let us be conjunctive in our revenge against him; if thou camst cuckold him. thou dost thyself a pleasure, me a sport" 1(1, ill, 374), 14 "•Tis to his virtue a Just equinox" and "He'll watch the horologe a double set" (II, ill, 129; 136) show this phase of his lamguage. 15 Clemen, Shakespeare's Imagery, pp. 120-121. 95 there is the fusion of rationality and animality. He sees the world as a stable or malodorous menagerie. A faithful servant is like an ass (l, 1, 46); Othello is trustful and can be led by the nose like an ass (l, ill, 407). He advises Rodgerigo to "Plague him ^thello/ with flies." The Moor is "an old black ram" tupping a "white ewe" (I, 1, 88); he is a "Barbary horse"; when he has Desdemona in his arms, they "make the beast with two backs" (II, 1, 117). To lago one man differs from another as "the cod's head" from the "salm­ on's tail" (II, 1, 155); women in their kitchens are "wild­ cats" (II, 1, 110). He compares Roderigo to a hunting dog which he sets upon Cassio (II, 1, 316), and he thinks of him­ self as working like a hunter or trapper, "a hound on the trail," Ingeniously capturing his victims by net or web. Not only does he think of men as animals, but through his trickery he causes them to become animals in their action. Cassio's self-denouncement, "I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial," (II, ill, 263-264), ex­ emplifies lago's proficiency in dehumanizing men until they, too, regard life as a barnyard. This low level of existence is reflected in Othello's speeches after lago has succeeded in poisoning his soul for a time. He takes up the theme of goats, monkeys, and toads in imaigery as base as any that lago could muster.

•— 15~ Mikhail M, Morozov, "The Individualization of Shake­ speare's Characters through Imagery," Shakespeare Survey, II (1949), pp. 87-88. 96

With lago's rationalistic approach to life, it is not surprising that he frequently resorts to prose to express himself. He is utterly incapable of the opulent poetry of Othello, lago's brevity in imagery is in direct contrast to the moving poetry of the Moor, In describing himself to Desdemona, he says, "My invention comes from my pate as bird­ lime does from frize" (II, 1, 126), Of Cassio he says, "He'll be as full of quarrel and offence as my young mistress's dog" (II, ill, 52), He compares the human body with a garden, will with gardeners: what we plant in this garden depends upon ourselves. Idleness he compares with sterility and industry with manure, A final difference in the portrayal of villainy in lago from that of Aaron, Richard, and Regan is that lago ex­ periences murmurings of conscience which the other three do not. There is momentary doubt whether Roderigo and Cassio must be killed, a symptom which Bradley interprets as the 17 "obscure working of conscience or hvimanity," lago's remark that Cassio "hath a daily beauty in his life / That makes me ugly" is further evidence that lago is not a complete egoist, ^ Whether or not the statement is interpreted to mean that lago is ugly to himself or ugly to others is indicative of his consciousness of moral sense. He does not receive any plea­ sure in seeing those people suffer against whom he has no grudge; they are merely victims of circumstance.

'Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, p, 235, 97

CONCLUSIONS

There is a definite correlation between Shakespeare's maturation as an individual and his development as a drama­ tist. His rhetoric served basically the same functions in his early and late plays, but in his mature works there is a more skillful interweaving of language patterns, more subtlety in persuasion, and more individualization in character deline­ ation.

As Shakespeare becsime more proficient in handling words, his ability to interweave many patterns of language increased. In Titus Andronicus the Imagery was consciously constructed; Aaron often compared two things which had no innate similarity. In his pursuit of words, he selected those which would overwhelm the audience with their impres­ siveness. That is, rhetoric was used merely for the sake of rhetoric. As Shakespeare matured, he abandoned the technique for that of recurring patterns of imagery. By the time of Othello he was using the later technique by binding together in a single speech many recurring threads of language, literal and imaginal, thereby achieving dramatic unity and emotional intensity. Of the many functions of rhetoric, persuasion is one of the most important. Richard III relied numerous times on his powers of persuasion to perpetuate his reign of villainy. His effectiveness in persuasion was enhanced by 98

his capacity to detect the points of vulnerability of his victims. He was adept at turning a situation to his advan­ tage, but he lacked the subtlety of lago, who was so clever in his persuasion that his victims were not aware of the fact that they were being persuaded. In characterization Shakespeare shows a greater devel­ opment than in any other function of language. Aaron, the first villain studied, was a stereotype of the Machiavellian villain prevalent at the time, and, as such, must have been quite convincing to the audience of the day. To a present- day audience he would be less convincing. In Richard III Shakespeare began for the first time to individualize his characters through their language. It is his first play to be centered about a single character—his aspirations, his thoughts, and his actions. There is a realization that a greater tragic effect can be achieved from character than from spectacle, and, consequently, that to make a villain realistic a psychological Insight into his mental processes must be attempted. With Richard it is merely an attempt, but it constitutes Shakespeare's first break with conventional drama, Richard's language is a textbook type of rhetoric which is natural to his character, but it is not realistic, Regan exemplifies Shakespeare's mature versatility in char­ acter delineation. Her language is consistent with her char­ acter—blunt, cruel, and venomous. When she is forced to assume a more aggressive role, she is limited by her inability 99 to adapt her action and her language to new situations. T^e language of Regan and lago illustrates Shakespeare's mastery of the use of rhetoric to portray character realistically. They achieve realism in that their language is more organic than that of Aaron and Richard. 100

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abernethy, J. W. "Honest lago," Sewanee Review. XXX, 1922, Pp. 336-344, Aerol, Amold, "The Recapitulation Dream in Richard III and Macbeth. Shakespeare Quarterly. VI, 1955.—Pp. 51-62. ®*^®!** Howard. Induction to Tragedy. University, Louisiana, 1^39. Baldwin, Charles Sears. Medieval Rhetoric amd Poetic. New York, 1928. — Bethell, S. L. Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition. London, 19481 *^ __^. "Shakespeare's Imagery: The Diabolic Images in OiEello, Shakespeare Survey. V, 1952. ed. Allardyce Nicoll. Cambridge, England. Pp. 62-80, Boas, Frederick S, Shakespere and His Predecessors, London, 1939. Pp. 148-157:—*^ ^ Bogard, Travis, "Shakespeare's Second Richard," Publications of the Modern Language Association, LXX, 1955"^ Pp, 192-

Bowman, Thomas D, "A Further Study in the Characterization and Motivation of lago," College English. IV, 1942-1943, Pp. 460-469. Boyer, Clarence Valentine. The Villain as Hero in Elizabethan Tragedy. London, 19l4. Bradbrook, Muriel C. Shakespeare amd Elizabethan Poetry. London, 1951. . Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy. " CCTbridge, England, 1952. Bradley, A. C. Shakespeaream Tragedy. London, 1937. Camden, Carroll. The Elizabethan Woman. Houston, 1952. Campbell, Lily B. Shakespeare's "Histories": Mirrors of Elizabethan Policy. San Marino. 1947. h>. 306-3:^4, Shakespeare's Tragic Heroes. New York, 1952. 101

Chambers, E. K. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. Oxford, 1923. Chamey, Maurice. "The Draunatic Use of Imagery In Shake­ speare's Coriolanus," English Literary History, XXIII, 1956. Pp. It53-193. Clark, Donald L. Rhetoric and Poetry in the Renaissance. New York, 1922, Clemen, W, H, The Development of Shakespeare's Imaigery, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1951. . "Tradition and Originality in Shakespeare's Richard TIT," Shakespeare Quarterly, V, 1954, Pp, 247-2571 Cooper, Lane, The Rhetoric of Aristotle, New York, 1932. Cowden-Clark, Mary, Shakespeare Proverbs, Edited with In­ troduction amd Notes by William J, Rolfe, New York amd London, 1908, Craig, Hardin, ed, A History of English Literature, New York, 1950. . An Interpretation of Shakespeare, New York, 1948, ed. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. New York, T551. . The Enchanted Glass: The Elizabethan Mind in TrE-;rature, Wew York, 19^6, h>. 160-181, Crane, William G, Wit and Rhetoric in the Renaissance, New York, 1937. Denby, John F, Shakespeare's Doctrine of Nature: A Study of King Learl London, 1949. Draper, John W. The Humors and Shakespeare's Characters. Durham, 1945. Dunn, E, Catherine. "Storm Imagery in IttngLear," Shake­ speare Quarterly, VII, 1952, Pp. 329-353. Ebisch, Walther, and Levin L. Schucking. A Shakespeare Bibliography. Oxford, 1931. glliott, George Roy. Flaming Minister. Durham, 1953. 102

Ellis-Fermor, Una. The Frontiers of Drama. New York. 1946. Pp. 77-95. ' Elton, Oliver. "Style in Shakespeare," Proceedings of the British Academy. XXII, 1936. ^ Fenner, Dudley. The Artes of Logike and Rethorlke. Middel- burg, 1584, Flatter, Richard, The Moor of Venice. Melbourne, 1950, Gates, William Bryan, "The Reality of Shakspere's "Supers," Shakespeare Association Bulletin. XX, 1945, Pp. 160-172, Gervinus, G, G, Shakespeare Commentaries, translated by F, E, Burnett, London, 1903, ' Goddard, Harold C. The Meaning of Shakespeare. Chlcaigo, 1951. Granville-Barker, Harley. Prefaces to Shakespeare. 2 vols, Princeton, 1946. Harbage, Alfred. As They Ljiked It, New York, 1947. Heilmam, Robert B. "Dr. lago and His Potions," Virginia Quarterly Review, XXVIII, 1952. Pp. 568-5841 "The Economics of lago and Others," Publications oT^the Modem Language Association, LXVIII, 1953. Pp. 555^=^571: , "Tlie Lear World," English Institute Essays, 1948, ear D, A, Robertson, Jr, New York, 19^9- Pp. 29-57. Magic in the Web; Action and Language in Othello, EeScington, 195t>, , This Great Stage, Baton Rouge, 1948, Hill, R. P. "T^e Composition of Tltuat Andronicus," Shake­ speare Survey. X, 1957, ed, Allardyce Nicoll, Cambridge, England. 157 6O-70. Howse, Ernest Marshall. Spiritual Values in Shakespeare. New York, 1955. Pp. 73-88. Hudson, Hoyt Hopewell. The Epigram in the English Renais­ sance. Princeton, I947. 103

Jenkins, Harold. "Shakespeare's History Plays: 1900-1951," Shakespeare Survey, VT, 1953, ed. Allardyce Nicoll. Cambridge, England. Pp. 1-15. Jordam, Hoover H. "Draunatic Illusion in Othello," Shake - speare Quarterly, I, 1950. Pp. 146-152. Jorgensen, Paul A. "'Honesty'* in Othello," Studies in Phi­ lology, XLVII, 1950. Pp. 557-367: King Lear, A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, ed. Horace Howard Furness, Jr. Philadelphia, ItJfcJO. Klttredge, George Lyman. T^e Complete Works of Shakespeare. Boston, 1936. Knight, G, Wilson, The Wheel of Fire. London, 1949. Lever, Katherlne. "Proverbs and Sententiae in the Plays of Shakespere," Shakespeare Association Bulletin, XIII, 1938. Pp. 173-183 and 2S4-239. Lothian, John M. King Lear: A Tragic Reading of Life, Toronto, 1949. Miriam Joseph, Sister, Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Lamguage, New York, 1947. Moore, Horace Grady. "The Dramatic and Rhetorical Functions of Proverbial Materials in Representative Plays of ShaOce­ speare," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech­ nological College, Lubbock, 1955. Morozov, Mikhail M, "The Individualization of Shakespeare's Characters through Imagery," Shakespeare Survey, II, 1949, ed. Allardyce Nicoll, Cambridge, England, Pp, 83-106, Murray, Sir James A, H,, ed. New English Dictionary, VIII, 1914. Othello, A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, ed, Horace — Howard Kimess, Jr, Philadelphia, IO06, Palmer, John, Political Characters of Shakespeare. London, 1952. Parrott, Thomas Marc. Shakespeare, New York, 1938. Shakespeaream Comedy. New York, 1949. 104

Parrott, Thomas Marc, and Robert H. Ball. A Short View of Ellzabetham Drama. New York, I943. - William Shakespeare: A Handbook. New York, 1955. Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie. Edited with extensive introduction by Gladys Doldge Willcock and Alice Walker. Cambridge, England, I936. Rand, Prank Prentice. "The Over Garrulous lago," Shakespeare Quarterly. I, 1950. Pp, 155-I61. "Rhetoric," Encyclopaedia Brltannlca (1953), XIX, p. 247. Richard III. A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, ed. Horace Howard Furness, Jr, l»hlladelphia, 1908. Ridley, M, R, Shakespeare's Plays: A Commentary. London,

Rlx, Herbert David, Rhetoric in Spenser's Poetry. State College, Pennsylvania, 1940. Rosenberg, Marvin, "in Defense of lago," Shakespeare Quarter- ^, VI, 1955. Pp. 145-158. Shakespeare, William. King Lear, ed. Tucker Brooke, New Haven, 1947, Titus Andronicus. Arden Edition, ed, J, C, Maxwell, London, 1953. Smith, Robert B, "A Good Word for Oswald," A Tribute to George Coffin Taylor, ed. Arnold WllliamF: Chapel Hill, 1952: Pp. 62-66. Spencer, Theodore, Shakespeare and the Nature of Man. New York, 1949. Spurgeon, Caroline F. E, Shakespeare's Imagery. Cambridge, England, 1939. Stoll, Elmer Edgar. Art and Artifice in Shakespeare. New York, 1951. . Shakespeare Studies. New York, 1942. Swinburne, Algernon Charles. A Study of Shakespeare. Lon­ don, 1902. *^ ^ 105

Tilley, Morris Palmer. A Dictionary of the Proverbs in Eng- land in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Ann Arbor, 1950. Tillyard, E. M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. London, 1943. . Shakespeare's History Plays. New York, 1946. Traversl, D. A. An Approach to Shakespeare. Garden City, 1956. Pp, 181-213. Tuve, Rosemond, Elizabethan and Metaphysical Imagery, Chicago, 1947T ^"^ Van Doren, Mark, Shakespeare, Garden City, 1953. Waith, Eugene W. "The Metamorphosis of Violence in Titus Andronicus," Shakespeare Survey, X, 1957, ed. Allardyce Nicoll. Cambridge, England, Yp. 39-49, Wells, Henry W, "Senecan Influence on Elizabethan Tragedy: A Re-Estimation." Shakespeare Association Bulletin, XIX, 1944, Pp. 71-84. Willcock, Gladys D. "Language and Poetry in Shakespeare's Early Plays," Proceedings of the British Academy, XL, 1954, "Shakespeare and Elizabethan English," Shakespeare Survey, VII, 1954, ed, Allardyce Nicoll, Caunbrldge, England, Pp, 12-24, Wilson, J, Dover, ed, Titus Andronicus. Cambridge, 1948. Wilson, Thomas. The Arte of Rhetorique, ed, G, H, Mair. Oxford, 1909.