Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1971 Shakespeare's 'Rational' Villains in Relation to Right Reason. Patricia Ann Lacerva Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Lacerva, Patricia Ann, "Shakespeare's 'Rational' Villains in Relation to Right Reason." (1971). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 2141. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/2141 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 72-17 *779 LACERVA, Patricia Ann, 1939-. SHAKESPEARE'S 'RATIONAL* VILLAINS IN RELATION TO RIGHT REASON. The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Ph.D., 1971 Language and Literature, general University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. SHAKESPEARE’S 'RATIONAL1 VILLAINS IN RELATION TO RIGHT REASON A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of English by Patricia Ann Lacerva B.A., Southeastern Louisiana University, I960 M.A., Auburn University, 1962 December, 1971 PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As any student of Shakespeare realizes, a great debt is owed to scholars who have collected and collated the texts of the plays as well as to numerous critics who have shed light on the meaning of Shakespeare’s dramas. Since so many of these have not been mentioned in the following pages, I wish to thank them here for the contributions they have made and for the influences they have exerted upon my thinking. I wish to express my appreciation to Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., for granting me permission to cite from the text and use the through line numbers as established in Shakespeare: The Complete Works, ed. G.B. Harrison. In addition, I wish to thank the other publishers whose texts are mentioned. I am especially grateful to Professor William John Olive for his patient guidance and for the valuable insights that he has shared with me. Also, I wish to acknowledge the kindness and generosity of Professors Lawrence Sasek and Don D. Moore who took time from their summer vacations to read the manuscript and offer comments that aided greatly in the preparation of its final form. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................ ii ABSTRACT................................................ iv INTRODUCTION............................ 1 CHAPTER I. DISTRUST OF REASON.............................. 10 II. THE HUMANISTIC SPIRIT........................... 26 III. EMERGENCE OF THE VILLAIN OF REASON............. 49 IV. THE HISTORIES................. 70 V. THE TRAGEDIES.................................. 114 VI. THE COMEDIES................................... 177 CONCLUSION............................................. 214 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................. 223 VITA....................................................228 0 miserable me! how I indeed started when he seized me, saying: ’Perhaps you did not think me a logician!’ (Inferno, Canto XXVII) ABSTRACT Shakespeare's villains derive their rationalistic traits from the Vice of medieval English drama as well as from the stage Machiavel. Although a number of critical studies have touched upon the rationalism of Shakespeare's villains, none have dealt adequately with the question of whether the presence of rational villainy in the plays argues an underlying distrust of reason on the part of the dramatist. As early as the Middle Ages, man had begun to doubt the efficacy of reason in leading him to higher knowledge. Distrust of reason continued into the Renaissance under the auspices of the Protestant Reformation. Skeptics such as Montaigne were making their voices heard while The Prince stood as dramatic proof that reason did not necessarily lead to goodness and virtue. Shakespeare’s rational villains must be viewed not only in the light of man's growing distrust of reason but also in the context of what Renaissance.thinkers termed right reason. Briefly, right reason recognizes an ordered universe created by a rational Supreme Being, and it regards reason and virtue as indivisible. In denying right reason Shakespeare's rational villains reflect the beliefs of continental humanists. Since the doctrine of right reason was central to orthodox English humanism, Shakespeare'^ villains of reason must therefore represent the rebellious intellectual minority. They serve, finally, as a criticism of the Age. An examination of the histories, tragedies, and comedies, reveals Shakespeare’s belief that rational social order has correspondences in a rationally ordered cosmos. In these plays, the rational villain functions as an agent of political and moral chaos. The epic sweep of Shakespeare's histories denies exten­ sive character development to nearly all of the villains save Richard III, but their rationalistic tendencies are nonetheless in evidence, preparing the way for the tragedies and the playwright’s great dramatic achievements in stage villainy. Although penitent villains'" appear in the histories, this type of villain receives a far more interesting develop­ ment in the comedies. In these later works rational villainy produces regenerative moral effects not only upon the victims but frequently upon the villains themselves. By giving perspectives of right reason to his dramatic works, Shakespeare evinces the humanistic attitude. Moreover, the playwright seems to be moving from conceptions that are predominantly Aristotelian to those that are largely Platonic. As a result, evil loses its force while the* Christian themes of mercy and forgiveness occupy the ascendant. INTRODUCTION A number of critics have alluded to the fact that Shakespeare’s villains tend to be mentally rather than emotionally oriented; but the most positive expression of this attitude— at least the statement with fewest qualifications— has come from Cleanth Brooks, who attributes to Robert Penn Warren the "penetrating observation that all of Shakespeare's villains are rationalists."1 Few would deny the importance of emo­ tion and will in coloring the motives or defining the actions of Shakespeare's villains: Iago, for instance, appears to be driven by an intense, irrational hatred; Lady Macbeth, by a strong, uninhibited will. Yet, rationality emerges as perhaps the most conspicuous trait of villain personalities who inhabit the world of Shakespearean drama. In contrast, Marlowe's Tamburlaine operates upon a non-rational level, arguments of "expe­ diency" being hardly applicable to the excesses generated by the villain's rampant will. Although Mario Praz disagrees with Brandi's interpretation of Tamburlaine 2 as Machiavellian, scholarly differences of opinion ■^Cleanth Brooks, The Well Wrought Urn (New York: Harcourt, Brace arid Company, 1947), p. 42. 2 Mario Praz, Machiavelli and the Elizabethans (London: H. Milford,192$), pp. 26-7. suggest that rationality need not play a major part in the modus ouerandi of the Machiavellian villain. In applying the term machiavel loosely, one might simply wish to designate a character whose ambitions cause him to desire political power at any cost and whose actions demonstrate that he will allow nothing to separate him from the goals he has set for himself. Although it is sometimes dif­ ficult to distinguish between villains of will and villains of reason, it should become evident that a machiavel such as Macbeth will require rather close scrutiny, lest we assume too prematurely that all of Shakespeare’s villains are, in fact, rationalists. To what extent does Shakespeare’s depiction of villain intellect become relevant to Renaissance beliefs concerning the nature and function of reason? Martin Lings’ somewhat emphatic description of Iago and Edmund as "out and out Humanists"3 helps to underscore the difficulty of answering such a question. Lings defines humanism as the "rationalistic denial of all that is 4 superhuman and supernatural"; then, as further support of his contention that Iago and Edmund are humanists, the critic cites Iago’s praise of reason ("But we have 3 ^Martin Lings, Shakespeare in the Light of Sacred Art (New York: Humanities Press, 1966), p. 4^7 i 4 Ibid. reason to cool our raging motions..."--Othello I.iii) and Edmund’s praise of nature ("Thou, Nature, art my goddess..."— King Lear I.ii).^ The words reason and nature strike a familiar chord which no doubt sounds "humanistic" to some (and "neo-classical" to others); still, Shakespeare readers are likely to see a touch of irony in the semantic gap which dissociates Iago and Edmund from Renaissance humanists who had used classical definitions of Reason and Nature as a basis for highly developed ethical systems. Christian humanism had, in fact, drawn rather freely from reservoirs of Platonism, Stoicism, and Scholasticism. Shakespeare’s depiction of Iago and Edmund as machiavels must nat­ urally place them within the framework of continental humanism.