Shakespeare on Valour: the Lion, the Wren and the Warpath

Abstract

William Shakespeare's dramatic take on valour is complex and multifaceted, yet we can distinguish a recurring pattern of fake/dubious valour contrasted with real/idealised valour, which in turns leads to a consideration on what valour is for.

Introduction

Let us give a working definition of valour as 'conspicuous courage, typically in conflict'. It has to be conspicuous, to appear to audiences and characters onstage. And drama typically revolves around conflict anyway. We are concerned with actions, the externalised aspect of courage, and sometimes but not always the prospect of witnesses, inciters, mockers or adversaries on the receiving end. And this must imply an appreciation of risk and hazard.

Shakespeare on valour: the Lion (mere appearance), the Wren (paragon), and the Warpath (collective purpose)

We will first take a brief run through the plays in the (probably unsatisfactory) categories of Tragicomedy, Comedies, Histories and Tragedies. We will ignore for now the idea of 'problem plays' or satires/parodies.

Our aim here is to pick out patterns and themes, and identify questions for a more searching analysis later. Rough notes rather than polished prose will be the style used for brevity, with uncertainty of what is most significant to the question of valour.

Then we will consider how Shakespeare distinguishes between false appearances, true natures and ethical purpose of valour, before concluding.

'Tragicomedy'

In The Tempest, a mature work, Prospero oppresses Caliban by terror, Caliban resists but finds his new masters lack valour (I’ll not serve him; he is not valiant.) Prospero could strike at his foes, but The rarer action is in virtue than in vengeance.

Valour here is shown often stupid, stubborn, defensive or drunk, striking at air, achieving little. Sailors need unhampered professionalism to contend with storm, not valour. Mad valour drowns self?

The 'Comedies'

In Two Gentlemen of Verona, a servant lists his sacrifices for a dog, though dogs don’t give medals, nor thanks, nor recognition for taking their pillories. Solidarity is presented as a base attribute. Does a servant’s cheeky retort count as valour when they face a beating? Women are held to hate cowardice (along with falseness and poor descent, says Proteus). Valentine says I take your offer and will live with you, provided that you do no outrages on silly women or poor passengers. Valour is presented in the list of gentlemanly virtues.

In Merry Wives of Windsor, outsider valour is encouraged and mocked in Welsh and French duellists. Some things are deemed contrary to self-styled valour: as Pistol says Shall I Sir Pandarus of Troy become, And by my side wear steel? then, Lucifer take all! The Knight of the Realm Falstaff hides and flees.

In Twelfth Night, Viola implies her lack of valour is due to her sex, yet Sir Andrew Aguecheek’s lack of valour (gift of cowardice says Maria) suggests valour is not determined that way. Antonio follows Sebastian, saying But, come what may, I do adore thee so, That danger shall seem sport, and I will go. Olivia: If one should be a prey, how much the better To fall before the lion, than the wolf?. Fabian to Andrew: to awake your dormouse valour. Do women love valour (in men? by report of valour)? Andrew’s stated preference for valour over policy is more like action over thought. Antonio is not boastful about exploits, says he refused to pay for them (Act 3 scene 3). Swearing terrible oaths and swaggering may give reputation for valour (Toby). Putting quarrels on to taste valour (Viola).

In Measure for Measure, sister Isobel calls brother Claudio coward for preferring his life at her rape’s cost. Pompey the tapster: The valiant heart is not whipped out of his trade. Takes much valour to confront authority figures in Vienna, who have awful tortures at their command.

In Much Ado About Nothing, is there (sometimes) valour in declaring love (if you fear rejection or ridicule, say)? Beatrice cannot become a man by wishing to get revenge for Hero, condemns the courtesy of modern valour, He is now as valiant as Hercules that only tells a lie and swears it. The Watch would rather sleep than tackle criminals. Benedick: In a false quarrel there is no true valour.

In A Midsummer Night's Dream Titania’s defence of Indian boy for votarist’s sake seems to risk much; until her will is subdued by Oberon’s cowardly poisoning. valour flies in face of love?

LYSANDER: This lion is a very fox for his valour.
THESEUS: True, and a goose for his discretion.

A Midsummer Night's Dream (Act 5 scene 1)

In Love's Labour Lost, we see: warriors against desire? Valour in performance (stage fright)? In pursuing love (deer)?

In Merchant of Venice, the Prince of Morocco comes closest to valour in a suitor. Mere appearance (or excrement) of valour in Bassanio's beards of Hercules and frowning Mars.

In As You Like It, we see combatants wrestle for credit or in despair; swashing disguises; breaking a sword on a stone; a bullying approach rebuked; and brave lovers mocked.

In All's Well that Ends Well, animal valour is conjured in an image of a hind-lion love-death. Helena says torture me to death King if I cannot effect your cure in 24 hours. Meanwhile Parolles’ valour is extensively mocked. Valour seems empty at court. Frenchmen serve Mars not Woman? Reputation of Commanders' valour is comically disputed. When innkeeper's daughter Diana faces death within the hour, she faces down the King of France.

In Taming of the Shrew, men fear women’s scorn.

In Winter's Tale, Paulina is the exemplar of valour, standing between jailer and danger, confronting jealous King Leontes, shaming others as she would offer combat to defend the Queen if she was a man (but see later). Hermione shows great composure during trial but perhaps not outright valour since she seeks death. Autolychus represents anti-valour.

Summary of Comedies

So, in the Comedies, valour is seen as an admirable quality in men (and possibly a rare one, given the many examples of cowardice, 'mouth honour', empty oath-laden bragging or simply preferring to pick on the weak). Women seem to need valour as much as men in their declarations of love. But some women are particularly forward in defending other women or children, and their valour shines in opposition to powerful men (at the point the play wobbles between comedy and tragedy).

The 'Histories'

In Macbeth we early on hear some suspect testimony from the captain on his thane's extreme battle prowess valour’s minion. Lady Macbeth sees herself as a valour-imparter: the valour of my tongue? But stabbing an old man to death in his sleep is surely contrary to valour. The wren (paragon) against the owl (we'll return to this). Macbeth’s disputed valiant fury is still of an unruly kind. The play ends with a battle of unnatural cowards, charmed Macbeth and flighty Macduff. A few characters do show approximate valour (and die with wounds in front).

In King John we see a badge of proclaimed valour in a lion skin. Hubert risks disobeying king; young Arthur faces horror without falling apart; bastard Faulconbridge tells King John to inspire others against the valour of the invading French The youth says well!

In Richard II, Henry and Mowbray chafe for single combat (defending reputation). Ross says Urge doubts to them that fear. By the exchange of gages after Richard’s fall, we hear sympathy as spur to valour. Banished Mowbray seemed to have turned crusader. Valour can become silliness which gets in the way of truth-finding public investigations. Valour as abnegation of one’s own interests. Valour as standing up to an authority (king). Valour from (self and other) endurance. Valour as strongest and surest way to get.

In Henry IV part 1 Henry4 wants to kill pagans in their homes for crusading glory; praises friend and foe for valour (Hotspur’s is source of envy). Poins predicts cowardice of Falstaff and confederates. Valorous deeds obsess Hotspur, but his wife Kate tells of his other side (PTSD? Peacetime melancholy?). Is valour compatible with love, or a competitor? Falstaff’s valiant lion won’t touch the true Prince excuse (valour versus loyalty?); aged valour more valiant. Glendower mixes valour with restraint contrasting Hotspur’s harsh rage, defect of manners, want of government, pride, haughtiness, opinion, and disdain. Hotspur disdains poetry yet speaks nothing else in praise of valour; is the report of valour necessarily poetic? Does valour typically require haste? Henry4: nothing can seem foul to those that win. Henry4 is a vile hypocrite in all-abhorred war: the unprovoked war he wishes to pursue in crusades. Does Henry5 vowing to save others’ blood (single combat) constitute the highest form of valour, or posturing? Henry5 says Falstaff owest God a death. Falstaff’s soliloquy on honour. Relation of honour (valour?) to detraction. Hotspur talks so much he is cut off by imminent battle. Valour as becoming a target instead of your lord; as persistence. Hotspur associates Henry5’s valour with vanity (human valour as self-love?). So, valour can be deceitful? What are the rewards of valour? Falstaff, opposite of valour perhaps, has 3 of 150 ragamuffins left alive, those 3 destined for beggary (implied maiming). Does valour encompass jests that endanger comrades (sack a city)? Henry5 delivers captive Douglas free in respect of his valour. What is the goal of valour?

In Henry IV part 2 after war, true valour is turned bear-herd (Falstaff: I have the wars for my colour). In what sense does valour rely on imagination? Women’s tailor Feeble envisaged as valiant as the wrathful dove or most magnanimous mouse but Feeble accepts conscription with We owe God a death. Falstaff: I never knew yet but rebuke and check were the reward of valour. What is the reward of valour? Falstaff: and this valour comes of sherris (Dutch courage) not natural to many. Lord Chief Justice shows valour in standing up to Henry5?

In Henry V we see class comparisons of valour. Face-saving de-escalation (show thy valour, put up thy sword). Valour facing exposure for treason and death sentence. Physical bringing on of valour in to the breach. Inherited capacity for valour. Boy’s observation on (cowardly) companions. Terror used when valour fails? Does wind and sun produce more valour than beer and fog? Brave words (of Pistol) unreliable measure of valour. Can you have hidden valour (Dauphin’s)? Over-valiant mastiffs. Valour depending on (beef) full stomachs? Does having more time and opportunity to consider dangers increase valour shown? Can (care and) valour go out of fashion)? Do few die well that die in battle? Divine aid adding valour. Can valour be transmitted by bodily fluid (horse blood)? Is there valour in evening the odds for a disadvantaged foe? Or wish no advantage being the underdog? How to deal with shame? With unexpected victory? After victory, how should valour present? The price of valour (disordered nature etc). Relation of valour to (lifelong) constancy?

In Henry the Sixth Part 1 we see valour in reclaiming hostages. Do you fear valour more or madness? Joan (later made France’s saint) lets Talbot live. Slack of duty undoing valour. How easily is valour impersonated for pecuniary gain? How is women’s valour smeared? Does prior warning approve valour? Does ambition count against? Is the greatest source of valour maternal (Joan-Burgundy)? Shared intergenerational battlefields. Joan’s offer of supernatural sacrifice. Treatment of prisoners. Joan’s valour in denying ‘father’s’ (vicious?) offer of salvation from execution. What can valour gain (on the long term)? Recognised valour can catapult family to high aristocracy.

In Henry the Sixth Part 2, Jack Cade rails against English who won’t fight for their ancient freedoms but give themselves up to slavery to the nobility, breaking their oaths and betraying their families to rapine. Nobles invent enemy in France. Escalation: you killed our fathers, we’ll kill your children.

In Henry the Sixth Part 3 Henry6’s weapons are words etc but is Henry6’s self-interested peace opposite to valour? Margaret: The soldiers should have tossed me on their pikes before…. Valour and oaths. Valour or revenge? Richard’s testimony of his sons’ valour towards his life’s end. What is inhuman? Tigers? Chivalry and valour. Valour and fame/glory. Response to battlefield loss. Numbers in battle. Draw sword in right or for the crown? Effect of valour on opponents. Is valour a lie, told by aristocracy? Valour in civil war where you might kill kin. Grief and valour. Dying of wounds. Variable mercy. A mother stands up alone to a king. Valour and (newmade or old) friendship. Is valour loyalty- or honour- or kin- or principle-oriented? Queen Margaret: you have no children, butchers (irony). Is there valour in killing a future killer? Is the goal of valour really just to lift a baby to the throne?

In Richard III, we see valour in self-destruction. Sleep-stabbing seems cowardly. Conscience makes cowards? Angels and valour. Guilt and valour. Richard3 prepares for final battle berating subordinates, is haunted (Tomorrow, in the battle, think on me, And fall thy edgeless sword. Despair and die!). Richmond prays and encourages, has angels’ wishes in dreams. Does valour gain strength from clear consciences? Radcliffe: Nay, good my lord, be not afraid of shadows. Omens of success. God’s soldiers. Fight for wives and children, boldly and cheerfully. Stanley’s son held hostage. Richard3 disses foes as badly-led scum: Shall these enjoy our lands, lie with our wives, Ravish our daughters? Calls on St George. What would Richard3 do with a horse, without a kingdom? Dies with wounds in his front.

In Henry VIII Queen Katherine stands up to brace of cardinals.

Summary of Histories

Valour in the Histories is pretty much an aristocratic construct, a kind of weaponised propagandistic class war lie based on a truth embodied by very few examples, and some of those are very much not lords or knights.

The 'Tragedies'

Troilus and Cressida may rather be a satire on war? Valour invoked as defending/competing attributes (wiser, fairer, truer) of women-loved. Cressida's valour is defensive and watchful. Complex debate among Trojans gravitates towards Helen’s beauty/worth inspiring valour. Achilles called ‘lion-sick’, with a pride that eats valour? Animal valours crammed into slow-as-bear Ajax. Factionalism and hollow tents (Odysseus), competition kills in various ways. Does heat breed both love and valour? Voices of lions and acts of hares. How to treat contests (of unequal strength). Valour requires motion? Thersites would rather be a tick in a sheep than such a valiant ignorance: a theme of wars, lechery and incontinent varlets. Corruption encased within armour. Diomede condemns both sides. Sometimes war is murder.

In Timon of Athens senators rebuke Alciabides' character testimony saying there is no valour in drunken quarrelling and revenge. He’s truly valiant that can wisely suffer.

Coriolanus says he cannot make my heart consent to take a bribe to pay my sword in a play largely revolving around questions of valour and class war, where cicatrices — scars of wounds — are esteemed as badges of martial courage (as long as they aren't on the back, one imagines). Coriolanus rejects rewards and honours of valour while embracing combat and comradeship (though his mother Volumnia initially says she’d accept his good report and a dead son), and doesn’t want to hear of deeds in council.

Why do Patricians hold that valour (the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver) is the best qualification for Consulship? While in the same speech Cominius' shows disrepect in woman in the scene throway jibe, do the Patricians fear their power along with that of commoners? Coriolanus reckons speaking openly is valorous, diplomacy is base, while cowardice in war should disenfranchise commoners. But if commoners were valorous and armed, why would they need a smaller military class of nobles to defend them?

What are the Stratocracy’s virtues? Coriolanus, bred i’ th’ wars since he could draw a sword, says (of Rome's commoners, the plebians) On fair ground I could beat forty of them. How should wisdom harness valour? you are too absolute: Volumnia’s arguments are worth quoting her telling rebuke:

To beg of thee, it is my more dishonour
Than thou of them. Come all to ruin. Let
Thy mother rather feel thy pride than fear
Thy dangerous stoutness, for I mock at death
With as big heart as thou. Do as thou list.
Thy valiantness was mine; thou suck’st it from me,
But owe thy pride thyself.

Coriolanus (Act 3 scene 2)

When Coriolanus tells his frenemy Aufidius I also am longer to live most weary, and present my throat to thee and to thy ancient malice is any valour annulled by a deathwish? Indeed, Aufidius later says to a Volsci lieutenant that our virtues lie in the interpretation of the time, a clear indication that behaviour which might be seen as appropriate valour in one situation will be inappropriate in others, and with this he plans to bring down Coriolanus. When Aufidius tells Coriolanus You keep a constant temper, this is not so much an acknowledgement that constancy is a requirement of valour, than a mock.

As the play's final crisis unfolds, Coriolanus appears to re-evaluate his long-suffering/silent wife best of my flesh Virgilia: stubborn-constant, worldview-accurate, an integrated if limited personality. Where is valour in this scene? Perhaps for Coriolanus' martial version, the end of valour is destruction, but the women show a valour that leads to salvation.

In Julius Caesar armies march forward to demonstrate courage. Suicide is taken as a better option than being paraded in triumph, glory is found in losing. Caesar may despise base spaniel fawnings, but is he really supernaturally fearless? Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. When Octavius calls the third member of the triumvirate, Lepidus, a tried and valiant soldier, Antony replies:

So is my horse, Octavius, and for that
I do appoint him store of provender.
It is a creature that I teach to fight,
To wind, to stop, to run directly on,
His corporal motion governed by my spirit;
And, in some taste, is Lepidus but so.

Julius Caesar (Act 4 scene 1)

which is a decidedly unglamorous view of valour, from a commander who — here at least — seems to appreciate obedient, drilled and disciplined subordinates.

Antony and Cleopatra: Antony may have once thrived on horse puddles and human corpses, but do these hardships make him a valiant soldier? Antony tells Cleopatra she has conquered him, uses a metaphor for valour my sword, made weak by my affection.

Enobarbus, long loyal to Antony, now distances himself from the latter's excess of valour:

Now he’ll outstare the lightning. To be furious
Is to be frighted out of fear, and in that mood
The dove will peck the estridge; and I see still
A diminution in our captain’s brain
Restores his heart. When valour preys on reason,
It eats the sword it fights with. I will seek
Some way to leave him.

Antony and Cleopatra (Act 3 scene 13)

Antony calls self-stabbing 'Valiant Eros' Thrice nobler than myself, and at the end Octavius gives much the same accolade to Cleopatra: Bravest at the last.

Cymbeline compares valour and recklessness, considers valour in (social etc) unequals, valour as redemption, valour in treating prisoners and vanquished, valour in dangerous confession. The play is ambiguous about inherited qualities, the supposed genetic valour of the King's lost sons contrasts with the surprisingly dim son of a clever Queen.

Posthumus shows a leonine association of habitual show and valour, although he is beginning to see the light:

Let me make men know
More valour in me, than my habits show.
Gods put the strength o’ the Leonati in me!
To shame the guise o’ the world, I will begin
The fashion, less without, and more within.

Cymbeline (Act 5 scene 1)

In Titus Andronicus, a particularly unvalorous act — sacrifice of captive — sets off a chain of events. Goth Queen Tamora pleads:

But must my sons be slaughtered in the streets
For valiant doings in their country’s cause?
O, if to fight for king and commonweal
Were piety in thine, it is in these!

Titus Andronicus (Act 1 scene 1)

Titus chooses revenge over mercy, clearly there are double standards in Rome's treatment of patriotic valour. Titus the centrist (approved valour, but poor judge of character?) chooses madly unfit Saturninus. Gives away daughter Livinia in arguable act of despicable cowardice. Titus cannot escape unvalorous son-slaying act by disowning sons. Valour and piety. Marcus calls on Titus not to be barbarous. Aaron’s defence of newborn. Tamora’s exposition of strength: sun, eagles, is your city strong? When we see free Goths, they profess valour. But Lucius calls to hang an infant child. Superdad villain Aaron desperately bargains for the life of his baby. Valour against Rapine and Murder.

In Pericles Prince of Tyre valour in competition combat (and possibly some dancing) wins the Princess. Marina shows more than just undaunted valour and wit in defying brothel culture (more spine than her would-be murderer Leonine).

In King Lear, daughter Cordelia and liegeman Kent stand up to Lear’s apparent rage. Gloster would die to relieve his old master the king, stands the course against terror. Servant stands armed up to Cornwall, both die. The baddies attack weakness. Goodies more insistent on level playing field. Edgar harps on a theme: Men must endure their going hence even as their coming hither. Valour of prisoners? The wages of generalship. Was Kent battle-promoted?

Romeo and Juliet: valour as in standing (servants, innuendo). Nurse rebounds after being sexually assaulted in public. Does voluntary duelling constitute valour or perhaps mimic it? Romeo laments that Juliet's beauty has effected him and softened valour’s steel, but then why does Romeo immediately get the better of Tybalt (without apparently sustaining a scratch) when Mercutio didn’t? The Prince uses a line reminiscent of Angelo in Measure for Measure: Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill. which relates to both civil administrations' suppression of high-spirited deeds. Friar Lawrence dares Juliet’s valour in death-defying, to which she replies (and how can we doubt her):

O, bid me leap, rather than marry Paris,
From off the battlements of any tower,
Or walk in thievish ways, or bid me lurk
Where serpents are. Chain me with roaring bears,
Or hide me nightly in a charnel house,
O’ercovered quite with dead men’s rattling bones,
With reeky shanks and yellow chapless skulls.
Or bid me go into a new-made grave
And hide me with a dead man in his shroud
(Things that to hear them told have made me tremble),
And I will do it without fear or doubt,
To live an unstained wife to my sweet love.

Romeo and Juliet (Act 4 scene 1)

Hamlet: facing the supernatural is not the valour expected of guards. Hamlet seeks examples (will his mother see Denmark in ruins like Hecuba did Troy? Will assassination lead to civil war as in Julius Caesar?), looks for words to fire mood of revenge. Should you aim to send your enemies to hell? Hamlet and Laertes see failing to take revenge for father as moral failing.

Othello’s actual valour is not shown but much attested. Valour in drink? Othello is a play about the suppression of valour (until Emilia at the end). Ophelia dares Othello’s rage. Deceitful Iago declares Rodrigo’s valour is apt. Unarmed Emilia I care not for thy sword. I’ll make thee known, Though I lost twenty lives. stands up to armed lord Othello and equally armed husband Iago.

Summary of Tragedies

The Tragedies are often more explicate of valour, unsurprisingly since the genre deals with high deeds and purer (if not worthier) motivations. In non-Christian Rome, Greece-Troy, Egypt, different cultural standards and expectations of piety apply, and suicide (rejected by Hamlet) may be approved. The consequences are as great as in the Histories, but the characters are generally a bit more reflective, some to the point of self-absorption, as they weigh their actions. Some consider Macbeth to be a tragedy, not a history, and that fits.

Questions Arising

The topics in Shakespeare's plays are often treated ambiguously, tropes are undercut, conventions subverted. The questions raised are often open-ended.

• Is valour (in)compatible with: desperation; deathwish; wrath; vengeance; professionalism; deceit; injustice; conscience; fear; vanity; ambition; pride; reward?
• If compatible with reward, what are the rewards of valour: honour, reputation, love, survival (of others, maybe), promotion, loot, even a kingdom? And what of the costs of valour: wounds, possible humiliation and dispossession, death?
• Can valour be: taught; habituated; inherited; inconstant; imparted by speech or environment or alcohol?
• Does valour incline to: selfishness or selflessness? Preserving or changing the world? Haste or deliberation? Competition or grace? Imagination or immediate focus? Loyal obedience or dangerous dissent? Heat and motion, or weighed wisdom and justice?
• Is unseen courage a worthier attribute than obvious valour?
• Is there valour in disarming yourself (famously Prospero; or (re)arming an opponent) or exposing vulnerabilities? Is there valour in evening the odds for a disadvantaged foe?
• Can some forms of valour even be scandalous? Woman’s lone pilgrimage in man’s world (Julia in Two Gentlemen of Verona; cast as impudent strumpet, maybe).
• Or to the contrary, is true valour a feature of the underdog, the undervalued and socially disadvantaged?
• Is there a time and place for valour? A formality owing to it? A class, gender, role or species determinant? Does it go in and out of fashion? How do we recognise valour?
• How easy is it to fake valour? In what common ways is this attempted? Is there a playbook, like a code of chivalry?
• To what extent might legal challenges or whistleblowing (perhaps against powerful authorities) or breaking social codes/expectations require valour?
• What reactions might valour provoke: envy; desire; emulation; mockery; respect; fear?

Drama may not give definitive answers, but shows patterns of interaction in favouring some interpretations over others, otherwise we could not tell comedies from tragedies.

The Lion (guise or customary form of valour)

The lion is, of course, a heraldic charge in the coats of arms of English Queens and Kings (including Elizabeth I and James I/VI of Scotland), and earlier Richard 'Lionheart'. So it is quite a bold move of Shakespeare to play so subversively with lions. Not least by Falstaff likening himself to a valiant lion, and calling Prince Hal a lion's whelp.

Real lions may be ambush predators, eaters of carrion, sometime predators on much weaker or less aggressive animals. Male lions may kill lion cubs sired by another, and scavenge while female lions do most of the actual hunting. Their family grouping (pride) is named after a Christian deadly sin, and Shakespeare uses 'lion-sick' to mean over-proud.

Moreover, Shakespeare's lions are often hollow skins, trappings and disguises such as Snug the Joiner's theatrical costume or the Duke of Austria's robe. A lion's destiny might to be beguiled by foxes, outwitted by wolves, ultimately becoming old and fangless. Yet referenced lion myths show a gentler, more merciful side than many human characters. The lion's roar may shake the forest, but it gets hungry and tired all the same. When Shakespeare really wants unbridled savagery, he tends to refer to tigers instead of lions.

So we see a pattern in characters with lion names. Leonatus Posthumus hardly inherits his father's valour, remotely instructing his servant to murder his wife over a false accusation of infidelity. Leonato decries his own innocent and unjustly-accused daughter Hero (whose accuser-fiancé is described as a lamb doing lion-like martial feats). Leontes condemns his innocent wife to death on mere suspicion of adultery, kills his son with grief, and orders the murder of his daughter. Leonine is set to murder innocent Marina on the orders of her ungrateful-envious foster-mother Dionyza. In each case a positive reputation is at odds with foul and cowardly actions.

This is a pattern repeated throughout the works. Macbeth (inexplicably woundless in battle) buys golden opinion, then murders his king under his wife's battlements (gold is, of course, the colour of lions and crowns). The martially-reputed Othello turns to sordid spouse murder. Parolles' vaunted valour seems not to extend beyond his scarves, though his arc is more redemptive.

And most signficantly, these outward shows are mocked throughout the plays, as in many of the examples already noted. Mocked, and contrasted…

The Wren (paragon or true nature of valour)

While there are a few warrior characters who might embody valour, they tend to muddy or undermine their own claims. Typical of these, Harry 'Hotspur' Percy is a hothead craving honour. Hector initially seems to argue virtuously, but (perhaps Godspelled) rejects Cassandra's warnings and fights a stupid war. Joan of Arc represents at least four kinds collective-valour cases that we have not especially touched on: nationalism (she fights for France); class (she fights for peasants); sex (she fights for women); and religion (she fights for God); however, Joan is a complex character, who is somewhat changeable (though even the valorous flinch at being burnt at the stake), and pursues some elevated place by the Dauphin's side.

A purer form of valour is presented in contrast to warrior stereotypes and authority figures, and particularly in defiance of them.

The Duke of Cornwall's unnamed servant takes up arms and fatally wounds his evil master, dying in the action. The woman's tailor, Francis Feeble, impresses recruiter Bardolph — Well said. Th’ art a good fellow. — with a stoic response to being called up to fight (and likely die) in the Prince's service, while others buy their way out (although we don't see Feeble in action, where he may flee). Doll Tearsheet stands up against 'Captain' Pistol, knife against sword, peppering him with ridicule. But what if you have no human weapons? What if, like the dove that pecks the estridge, you only have fury (or some other driving emotion)?

Unarmed Emilia stands up to not just one but two armed men, saying to her lord Othello: Thou hast not half that power to do me harm as I have to be hurt which is a fascinating statement that seems to stop him in his tracks, and to her husband Iago.

IAGO: Be wise, and get you home. Offers to stab his wife
EMILIA: I will not.

Othello (Act 5 scene 2)

But Emilia has unfairly punched down on Bianca in the previous scene: O fie upon thee, strumpet!, been a too-easily-duped party to Iago's plots, and her undoubted valour (the only heroic action in a play centring around male martial posturing) comes a little too late, though she pays the ultimate price.

Physician Paulina stands up against the tyranny (he disputes this) of her jealous king Leontes, inspiring her husband to try to save the life of the royal newborn, facing a stream of royal threats and insults:

LEONTES: I’ll have thee burn'd.
PAULINA: I care not:
 It is a heretick that makes the fire,
 Not she which burns in’t. I’ll not call you tyrant;
 But this most cruel usage of your queen
 (Not able to produce more accusation
 Than your own weak-hing'd fancy) something savours
 Of tyranny, and will ignoble make you,
 Yea, scandalous to the world.

Winter's Tale (Act 2 scene 3)

Yet Paulina is too crafty to be a pure exemplar of valour, though valour she displays.

Another female physician, Helen, boldly invites the King of France to torture her to death if she cannot cure his fatal sickess. Yet there is something unsavoury about her motivation to force Bertram to marry her.

It is in Macbeth, a play which ends with a duel between two cowards (the mass-murderer and protection-charm-relier Macbeth, and family-abandoner Macduff), that Shakespeare produces the greatest contrast.

LADY MACDUFF: What had he done to make him fly the land?
ROSS: You must have patience, madam.
LADY MACDUFF: He had none.
 His flight was madness. When our actions do not,
 Our fears do make us traitors.
ROSS: You know not
 Whether it was his wisdom or his fear.
LADY MACDUFF: Wisdom? To leave his wife, to leave his babes,
 His mansion and his titles in a place
 From whence himself does fly? He loves us not;
 He wants the natural touch; for the poor wren,
 The most diminutive of birds, will fight,
 Her young ones in her nest, against the owl.
 All is the fear, and nothing is the love,
 As little is the wisdom, where the flight
 So runs against all reason.

Macbeth (Act 4 scene 2)

So there you have it. Shakespeare's paragon of valour is the tiny mother wren, hurling herself at the mighty owl to defend her young.

The Warpath (goal or best use of valour)

We have seen examples of self-abnegation, service to others, willing sacrifice, dissent, holding power accountable, defending the weak. Shakespeare turns to nature: not ultimately to the haughty lion, but humbler beasts. As Clifford appeals to Henry VI in face of looming battle for the crown:

My gracious liege, this too much lenity
And harmful pity must be laid aside.
To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
Whose hand is that the forest bear doth lick?
Not his that spoils her young before her face.
Who scapes the lurking serpent’s mortal sting?
Not he that sets his foot upon her back.
The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.

Henry VI part 3 (Act 2 scene 2)

As social animals, in the human world, valour must also work at a collective, social, crowd scale.

A generation after Shakespeare's death (in 1616) and the publication of his works in the First Folio (1623), the English staged a revolution (c1640) and cut the head off their King (1649). Whatever the causes, whatever Shakespeare's take on the monarchomachs ("those who fight against monarchs") was, his dramatic works interacted with the times. Under tyrannical oppression, even dormouse valour may awake.

Shakespearean drama is very much concerned with tyranny, with unjust power relations, and more or less cruel abuses, but whilst a keen political analyst and commentator, Shakespeare the dramatist was no utopia-builder (his anarchist idylls seem impractical daydreams or naturalistic musings). Shakespeare satirises war and shows its heinous, criminal, aristocratic and stupid side. But he also mocks the populist uprisings of Jack Cade, and in many cases the multi-headed and changeable commons. Shakespeare's disinterest in parliaments is countered by perhaps a view of the London stage as one, with crowd participation. However, his depiction of Republics (Roman and Venetian) suggests his interest in exploring alternatives to the dynastic rule his plays so mercilessly skewer.

We need valour because the world is unjust, to defend ourselves and others; and to right wrongs, we must confront wrongdoers and their accomplices, who so often hold positions of power or advantage. Shakespeare does not glorify political violence, nor does he shun it. The path to war leads to many harms, but who would prefer to live under Macbeth's regime, and watch their children murdered before them? And dynastic rule may throw up another Macbeth at any time.

Conclusion

We've looked at portrayals and examples of valour in the plays of Shakespeare, looking for patterns in categories and discovering open questions. Where we have identified patterns and answered questions, we find that: conventional appearances of valour (the warrior, the Lion) fall short or are false; underdog characters are more likely to represent true valour when standing up to powerful figures in defence of others without craft or ulterior motives (the healer, the Wren); and we consider that collective valour must be needed to overcome tyranny and oppression.

Shakespeare's take on valour is multifaceted and more angles could be pursued. A semi-automated textual analysis might reveal more, as would comparisons with other works. Shakespeare may have been familiar with the works of political theorists like Machiavelli, whose writings may have provoked some dramatic treatments. Many questions raised here remain unanswered.

What is clear, is that examples of valour inspire others, on stage, in animal paragons, or in real life. Just don’t imagine that dressing in a lionskin and waving a sword about will fool anyone. Or that valour alone is nearly enough: remember Shakespeare's portrayal of fighting thin air in The Tempest, and Hotspur's deficiencies. In our world, the Wren is always fighting off the predatory owl.

Shakespeare on Valour: the Lion, the Wren and the Warpath © 2026 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is not an Antisemitic Play

Abstract

William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice is not antisemitic, for though it contains anti-Jewish expressions and anti-Jewish characters, the main Jewish character Shylock is really the play's only honest dealer, if not necessarily likable.

Introduction

On a superficial level, The Merchant of Venice might appease members of a audience who looked for and wanted some negative traits in a Jewish stereotype, but the character of Shylock is complex and multi-valued. In fact, we are treated to an extraordinary number of other things that Shylock values often moreso than money, which latter may even be a proxy for other things.

Shylock's essentially positive characteristics

Shylock

For a start, Shylock is asked by Antonio what rate of interest he will charge, but Shylock refuses to take interest, preferring a contract that will let him hold Antonio at least temporarily in his power. Later we see Shylock pursue his revenge (for the undisputed wrongs he and his people have suffered) in disdain of money and profit.

Salarino: Why, I am sure if he forfeit, thou wilt not
take his flesh! What’s that good for?
Shylock: To bait fish withal; if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me and
hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted
my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies—
and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not
a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions? Fed with the
same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to
the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not
bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you
poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall
we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong
a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian
example? Why, revenge! The villainy you teach me I
will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the
instruction.

The Merchant of Venice (Act 3 scene 1)

We see Shylock mourn his dead wife Leah whose ring he would never sell, and his lost daughter, and her lost respect for him.

Tubal: One of them showed me a ring that he had of
your daughter for a monkey.
Shylock: Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal. It
was my turquoise! I had it of Leah when I was a
bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness
of monkeys.

The Merchant of Venice (Act 3 scene 1)

We see particularly in the court case that Shylock prizes the law, and learning, and wisdom, and his religion. We see in his condemnation of Christian slavery a side of Shylock that may be empathy, or value honesty over (Christian) hypocrisy (and it is Venice's Christians who are portrayed as hypocrites, not the Jews). We see a man demanding respect and justice, standing up (rather bravely even) against his enemies to demand his rights.

What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?
You have among you many a purchased slave,
Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts
Because you bought them. Shall I say to you
“Let them be free! Marry them to your heirs!
Why sweat they under burdens? Let their beds
Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates
Be seasoned with such viands”? You will answer
“The slaves are ours!” So do I answer you:
The pound of flesh which I demand of him
Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it.
If you deny me, fie upon your law:
There is no force in the decrees of Venice.
I stand for judgment. Answer: shall I have it?

Shylock, The Merchant of Venice (Act 4 scene 1)

Shylock is not perhaps a popular or greatly likable man. He has moral convictions without being a moral hero. He seems to yearn for but never quite deserve respect. His vindictiveness is understandable but perhaps excessive. He is tricked in the end because he is not a trickster, but an honest dealer. He is the butt of jokes, the target of abuse in the streets and of false representations. He does complain about expenses, but who would not be horrified by his daughter Jessica's extravagance?

There are many clues to Shylock's character that would be completely unnecessary in an antisemitic play, but to end on just one, in Shylock's summary of Launcelot Gobbo's unsurprisingly unsatisfactory stint of service, weighed against his unprofitable points, his Jewish master says the patch is kind. This is Shylock's valuing of kindness against all the other negatives; he has kept his servant all this time, not solely for productive reasons, but of something that must approach fondness (a fondness which is piquantly unrequited). And Shylock says farewell by putting in a good word to his new Christian master, and warning his servant that he may not be treated so well in his new employ.

The Christians

We might as well ask, with slightly more profit, if The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Christian play. No, it's not, but the Christian characters, polities and institutions are as a whole more questionable and questioned in the play.

Portia is explicit about the hypocrisy the Christians display, telling us she is better at setting rules than following her own. For all Portia-disguised’s banging on about mercy, it is Bassanio who offers to meet Shylock’s post-blood 3 times 3000 ducat claim, and Portia who pursues punishment upon Shylock, perhaps out of spite (at Bassanio's apparent disloyalty), and her anti-patriarchal sentiments (she has already implied she has a hot temper).

Christians of all ranks appear to lie and deceive; the sense is that Venice's competitive trading culture encourages sharp elbows.

Several of the Christians make racist remarks, which are clearly signposted as bias or bigotry or ignorance. We can take it that Launcelot Gobbo is an unreliable narrator, who deceives his own father with relish, as well as Shylock.

The play also contains criticism of corrupt obtaining of estates, degrees and offices in Christian Europe.

Jessica

Shylock's daughter Jessica is a Jew with a contrasting personality to her father, but her ambition is to elope and become a Christian wife. It is unclear if she regrets this decision by the end of the play. It is left to production and performance how Jessica plays her doubt-expressing love dialogue and receives the court-imposed inheritance.

I am never merry when I hear sweet music.

Jessica, The Merchant of Venice (Act 5 scene 1)

The Continuum of Life

There is also a consideration if animals and humans are on a continuum, broadening Shylock's powerful universalist plea beyond humanism.

Conclusion

The play successfully treats the subject of antisemitism while giving Shylock some of the best lines and the most powerful arguments. Where Judaism and Christianity are compared, the hypocrisy of Christians is shown up, whereas Shylock pursues an honest, open and for a while apparently legal revenge.

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is not an Antisemitic Play by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet as a cautionary tale

Abstract

Almost everyone we encounter in the play bears some responsibility for the ensuing multi-death tragedy.

Introduction

Almost everyone in the play contributes to the tragic deaths of young people. A story not so much about love but a call to change a society where your actions, inactions or mistakes can kill you or someone else. Other named characters such as Rosaline are blameless and therefore do not appear.

Warning: unauthorised wall-scaling and poetic pickup lines in progress

First, we will run through Romeo and Juliet the play and pick out relevant moments.

Then, we will analyse themes and language.

Finally, we will say what the play is not, before tendering our conclusion.

Notes on language

In this article, 'parents' is used as a shorthand for parents/guardians/primary caregivers and all comparable roles. In the play, the parents of interest are the couples: Montagues and Capulets.

Key Quotations from the Play, with Brief Notes, Scene Summaries and Questions

Prologue

Here we encounter the ancient grudge that informs the rest of the play.

Act 1

A1s1 Capulet servants Sampson and Gregory exhibit bravado, belligerence and sexualised threats; they pick a fight with servants of Montague with foreknowledge that this quarrel may lead to tyrannous behaviour and harm to innocents. Sampson: Draw, if you be men Benvolio tries to keep peace.

Tybalt: “What, drawn, and talk of peace? I hate the word,
  As I hate hell, all Montagues and thee:
  Have at thee, coward.”

Tybalt especially shows wilful misinterpretation to exaggerate threats to justify violent response. Citizens seek to put down brawl with clubs while Capulet calls for long sword to match Montague. Prince threatens them with torture and death:

Three civil broils, bred of an airy word,
By thee, old Capulet and Montague,
Have thrice disturb’d the quiet of our streets;

Far from fray, Romeo tells Benvolio of his groaning unrequited love for a woman who has foresworn love.

A1s2 Paris sues Capulet for his daughter’s hand but Capulet says she is too young:

My child is yet a stranger in the world,
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years;
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.

but will see if she will become amenable. Do characters simulate more in verse? Servant cannot read list of party guests: is illiteracy a contributory factor to civil ills? Literate characters may manipulate illiterate ones. Benvolio names Rosaline as Romeo’s love.

A1s3 Nurse reckons Juliet’s age a fortnight and odd days short of 14 years, a similar age to her own dead daughter Susan. Lady Capulet tells Juliet she was married at a similar early age and other ladies are already mothers by 14 so Paris?

Juliet: “I’ll look to like, if looking liking move:
  But no more deep will I endart mine eye,
  Than your consent gives strength to make it fly.”

We discover over time that Juliet is under intense and urgent pressure to conform to her parents’ wishes, which transmit to servants.

Servant: “Madam, the guests are come, supper served up, you called,
  my young lady asked for, the nurse cursed in the pantry, and every thing in extremity.
  I must hence to wait; I beseech you, follow straight.”

A1s4 Romeo prepares to gatecrash his familial enemy’s swanky party, bolstered by banter. Mercutio’s intense and rambling speech seems sign of a disordered mind; perhaps he fears he cannot speak clearly and plainly even to his closest friends.

A1s5 Romeo sees Juliet and mentally dumps Rosaline. Tybalt, overhearing him, storms but is checked by Capulet, who is strangely well-disposed towards Romeo, or at least wants his party to go smoothly. Romeo and Juliet flirt, until Nurse reveals her to be Capulet’s heiress daughter. As Romeo leaves, Juliet learns his identity (stranger in the world, remember).

Act 2

A2s1 Romeo scales Capulet’s garden wall, ditching friends and their possibly restraining advice.

A2s2 Romeo overhears Juliet pining for him, they talk of peril, their families’ enmity, love, oaths, marriage all with unseemly precipitous haste and on very little acquaintance. This unfathomable speed and secrecy is a caution in itself: who knows what young ones are up to? Romeo seeks collaborator in Franciscan Friar Laurence.

A2s3

Friar Laurence: “Be plain, good son, and homely in thy drift;
  Riddling confession finds but riddling shrift.”
Romeo: “Then plainly know, my heart’s dear love is set
  On the fair daughter of rich Capulet:”

Friar ridicules Romeo’s prior doting on Rosaline, says young men love with eyes not hearts, but because he has another motive (ending the feud) he agrees.

A2s4 Benvolio and Mercutio talk of duels and Tybalt’s fencing prowess. Romeo jests, Nurse arrives from Juliet, they arrange secret wedding for afternoon.

A2s5 Juliet is impatient that Nurse who left at 9 is not back before noon. Nurse arrives, spins out her tale of Romeo arranging wedding at Friar Laurence’s cell. Juliet: Hie to high fortune! — honest nurse, farewell.

Is the Nurse honest if she doesn’t tell her employers she is helping Juliet marry secretly in opposition to their choice?

A2s6 Friar: These violent delights have violent ends, yet marries Romeo and Juliet in secret haste; perhaps also feels they will sin if left alone.

Act 3

A3s1 Mercutio says Benvolio will attack a harmless waiter after two cups of wine and quarrel over anything. Benvolio replies Mercutio is worse. What is the cause of their distemper? Tybalt arrives and it kicks off, Romeo arriving, Benvolio attempting to calm. Mercutio thinks Romeo’s pleasant response to Tybalt’s hate is appeasement. Mercutio, dying, curses both houses. Incensed, Romeo slays Tybalt in revenge, then flees. Benvolio gives accurate account to Prince, who banishes Romeo on pain of death. Prince: Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill.

A3s2 Juliet waits impatiently for Romeo, Nurse appears with cord ladder and news that someone (Tybalt) is dead, Romeo banished, while Juliet imagines dying, and that Romeo’s beautiful outside hides an opposite nature. They agree Nurse will bring Romeo.

A3s3 Romeo also takes news from Friar of banishment with melodrama, at length. Nurse arrives and with Friar eventually shame some sense into Romeo: to Juliet, then Mantua to await developments.

A3s4 Capulet still wants to hurry Juliet’s wedding with Paris, who can hardly wait. Fewer guests out of ‘respect’ for Tybalt.

A3s5 Juliet and Romeo, marriage consummated, tarry in her bedchamber. They part thinking on death again. Lady Capulet thinks Juliet cries too much for Tybalt, says she’ll send a poisoner to Mantua to kill Romeo in revenge. Juliet is shocked by the ‘haste’ her parents want to see her wed Paris.

Juliet: “I wonder at this haste; that I must wed
  Ere he, that should be husband, comes to woo,”

Lady Capulet: “I would, the fool were married to her grave!”

Capulet: “Out, you green sickness carrion! out, you baggage!”

Nurse stands up for Juliet:

God in heaven bless her! —
  You are to blame, my lord, to rate her so.

Capulet: “An you be mine, I’ll give you to my friend;
  An you be not, hang, beg, starve, die i’th streets,”

Juliet seeks delay or death; parents leave and she seeks comfort from Nurse… who, likely thinking on her own dead Susan, betrays Juliet by switching to back Paris and an unrealistic living make-do. Juliet pretends to relent, Nurse leaves to tell Capulets good news.

Juliet: “Ancient damnation! … Go, counsellor;
  Thou and my bosom henceforth shall be twain.”

Either the Friar will help, or Juliet considers taking the suicide option.

Act 4

A4s1

Friar: “You say, you do not know the lady’s mind;
  Uneven is the course, I like it not.”

Paris claims Capulet thinks Juliet’s grief for Tybalt is dangerous, and hasty marriage a cure. Juliet arrives and easily gets the better of Paris, dismissing him and saying Friar better have a solution to Romeo’s banishment, or she’ll kill herself:

I long to die,
If what thou speak’st speak not of remedy.

Friar offers a desperate, daring, dangerous hope. Fake your death, Juliet! Juliet eagerly accepts his offered drug.

A4s2 Juliet feigns obedience to Capulet who accepts her volte-face explanation that Friar taught her obedience in one session.

Juliet: “Henceforth I am ever rul’d by you.”

Capulet: “my heart is wondrous light,
  Since this same wayward girl is so reclaim’d”

A4s3 Juliet wonders if she should call back Nurse and mother, or drink the unknown drug, or kill herself with dagger?

Juliet: “What if it be a poison, which the friar
  Subtly have minister’s to have me dead”

to avoid dishonour for Romeo marriage. What horrors might confront her in the tomb? She drinks.

A4s4 The Capulets and servants are busy with wedding preparations, the external forms of the planned relationship.

Capulet: “Go, waken Juliet, go, and trim her up;
  I’ll go and chat with Paris: — Hie, make haste,”

A4s5 Nurse tries to waken Juliet, fails. She, Capulets, Paris, household bar Friar think she’s dead. Lamentation (and some nasty blame from Paris). Friar: think of it as a promotion.

Act 5

A5s1 In Mantua, Romeo dreams of death, then learning of Juliet’s ‘death’ and burial seeks poison from desperate apothecary:

Such mortal drugs I have; but Mantua’s law
Is death, to any he that utters them.

Romeo: “I pay thy poverty, and not thy will.”
  “There is gold, worse poison to men’s souls,
  Doing more murders in this loathsome world,
  Than these poor compounds that thou may’st not sell:”

(which didn’t put Romeo off the fair daughter of rich Capulet!)

A5s2 Friar learns his letter never reached Romeo in Mantua and hastens tombward.

A5s3 Why exactly does Paris hope to gain by sneaking into Juliet’s tomb? Romeo says he is going to see Juliet’s face…

But, chiefly, to take thence from her dead finger
A precious ring; a ring that I must use
In dear employment

but servant Balthasar has his doubts and hangs about. Paris sees Romeo as Montague who partly caused Juliet’s death by killing Tybalt. They needlessly fight, Paris ignoring Romeo’s plea to leave, Romeo kills Paris, sees, speechifies to and kisses Juliet, then drinks poison and dies. [only seconds too soon…] Friar arrives too late, talks with Balthasar.

[Events appear to be taking on a dreamlike quality] Juliet awakes but Friar fails to rescue her, if secretly stuffing her into a nunnery counts. Poison failing, Juliet stabs herself to death with Romeo’s dagger. Watch apprehend Friar and everybody else turns up for a gawk. Prince holds an impromptu court; Friar and others testify, Romeo’s letter corroborates. Prince lays blame on feuding Capulets and Montagues, who say they’ll patch up quarrels, raise statues and make amends.

Prince: “And I, for winking at your discords too,
  Have lost a brace of kinsmen: — all are punish’d.”

Prince doesn’t yet specify who will be further punished or pardoned, at least implying the form of due process.

Themes and Language

Given this reading as a cautionary tale, it is essential to include language on themes such as suicidal intentions, since these are things that others should be picking up and listening to; and that Juliet’s young age (13 going on 14) be respected (or intervention be too late).

Some other warning signs or contributive factors to the play's tragedies include:

• Secretive behaviour (both the Nurse and the Friar encourage this, perhaps such encouragement often has comedic results in plays).
• Sexualised speech (where inappropriate and/or threatening, such as the banter which creates an atmosphere of intimidation or lewdness which is divisive).
• Unreasonable and excessive haste (a general fault, oft-mentioned word in the play).
• Quarrelsomeness; aggression.
• Ulterior motives (civil peace; rich heiress).
• Displacement, transference, confusion (Nurse’s Susan, see later).
• Personal pride and ambition.
• People who think both Romeo and Juliet need to be fixed (I don’t mean neutered).
• Children who learn to tell parents what they want to hear etc. Juliet lies to father about being ruled by him, but doesn’t bother lying to Paris, instead deftly fooling him. Parents should watch for sudden obedience.
• Frustrated competition, either banned, unsafe (like duels) or precluded (like courtship).
• Suppression of other opportunities (to learn, to interact, to show true colours, to escape class or gendered roles).
• Inconstant counsel (Nurse particularly).
• Betrayal of trust (Nurse again, though very likely with Juliet's longterm wellbeing in mind).
• Machiavellian tendencies; meddling (Friar, albeit with perhaps good and sincere intentions).
• Both young and old can be giddy and serious at the same time — seriousness does not require deep or sustained reflection nor constancy.
• Sole heirs (especially under dynastic societies, these are typically subject to considerable pressures).
• Overconfidence; simplification; lack of contingency planning (particularly the Friar).
• Feuding; grudge-keeping; avenging kin (Capulets particularly, for Tybalt).
• Deceit.
• Possibly undue leniency (Prince thinks so).
• Undeservedly harsh parental treatment (Capulets on Juliet).
• Emotional blackmail.
• Religious injunctions on obedience.
• Autocracy; hierarchy.
• Lack of empathy.

Is faking your own death ever the answer?

Poverty is not vice but desperation leads people to consider lawbreaking (the Apothecary).

Puberty transforms (Juliet) while parents may sometimes be too slow or too quick to anticipate changes. It is Juliet's linguistic skill, quick wit and pure determination that lets her wrongfoot the adults about her, who all seem to underestimate her (except perhaps Romeo, hence their almost-instant connection).

I won't go through all these aspects in detail, but consider how at any point the play's actions may be changed to avoid the tragedies.

What the Play is Not

Romeo and Juliet is not a love story. Yet one of the first thing Romeo says is that these broils may have as much to do with love as hate (as factionalism and in-out group psychology shows). Without much doubt, the truest love shown in the play appears to be the Nurse's for Juliet, who she treats like a surrogate daughter, always prattling happily on about her and running errands for her. However, even this love is notably imperfect, as the Nurse may be transferring her love for her dead daughter Susan on to Juliet. Indeed, we don't know if the Nurse's anecdotes about Juliet's infancy were not actually (misremembered) incidents from Susan's childhood. And in the crucial pivot of the play, the Nurse breaks faith with Juliet, preferring a 'safer' marriage with Paris and a live surrogate daughter to a Juliet pining over banished Romeo and suicidal ideation.

The play is not a comedy (though it shares some common comedic components, the remaining cast are united in grief not marriage), nor a typical tragedy (yet undoubtedly tragic in key elements). It has action but not of epic scale. It is not the stuff of history plays, yet it could be local history.

Unlike her parents’ choice, Romeo is Juliet’s alone, just as Juliet is Romeo’s alone (call her mine); this possessiveness (a mansion, robes) combines with deathwishes and nightlonging. Capulet attempts minionisation of Juliet. Both Romeo and Juliet seek to avoid traps. At what point in play do caring adults fail to understand Juliet’s inner life? From the very start? Which is mirrored by Romeo’s interiority. Shouldn’t Romeo and Juliet be Goths? Nurse knows what a dead child looks like, as do Capulets. Romeo bespeaks Tybalt and Paris fair but kills both aggressors.

So the story is probably much closer to social realism than the common comedies, tragedies, tragicomedies, epics, histories that Shakespeare's audiences were likely more familiar with. The question is: why?

Conclusion

If Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet as a socially-realistic play, where audience members may have recognised characters like themselves or people they knew, acting in quite believable ways which collectively ended in tragedy, then for what reasons?

I think it is highly plausible that many Shakespeare's plays are intended in main or part to increase empathy and appreciation of the value of human lives. I've already written something about Shakespeare's blood-savers. One could argue (and I would) that many lives may have been saved over the years by plays such as Othello, which should at least make jealous husbands think before murdering their wives (likewise A Winter's Tale, and so on and on).

But in Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare's focus shifts to children and young people, in the grip of powerful emotions, trapped by circumstance, daring to look death in the eye. I think, quite simply, Shakespeare wants to make us think of them, their worlds, their ambitions, their frailties, their hopes and dreams… and not crush them. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a cautionary tale. For all of us.

Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet as a cautionary tale by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Shakespeare’s Bloodsavers

Abstract

An investigation into the themes behind Shakespearean dramatic characters who move to save blood (other than their own, or close kin) from being shed, or lives being lost, typically in mass suffering or injury or killings.

Introduction

In Shakespeare's plays, there are characters who sometimes intervene, or plan, to prevent bloodshed on a significant scale. The characters of interest here are generally neither peacemakers per se, nor pacifists; and generally ones who go beyond purely partisan interests.

And will, to save the blood on either side,
Try fortune with him in a single fight.

—Prince Henry, Henry IV part 1 (A5s1)

The more realistic plays offer more general insight, so The Tempest's magic-wielding Prospero (who forsakes bloody revenge) is not included. Neither here considered are As You Like It's Rosalind (who creates a kind of marital peace, but the blood feuds are settled off-stage), nor The Merchant of Venice's Portia (only a single character's blood is saved, and Portia’s victory lacks justice, fairness and mercy). Neither considered are Troilus and Cressida's Hector advocating returning Helen and sparing defeated foes (a possible yet partisan fit), nor Romeo and Juliet's Prince, Nurse, Friar and Romeo himself, all of who have some shout in bloodsaving, yet whose motives appear counterweighted, compromised or opaque. Nor will characters who appear to have consistent pacifist or bloodshed-averse views be considered here (like Virgilia in Coriolanus). These tend to be untested characters (pacifism is awkward to be absolute in).

Verona's civil broils and Milan's coup are significant here, however, in broaching Shakespeare's concerns with civil war and conflict within kin groups.

To illustrate this theme, the following characters will be examined: Edmund of Langley Duke of York (Richard II); Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (Hamlet); Titus Andronicus; and Pericles. I will also explain why a few characters (like Prince Henry in the quote above) cannot reasonably be counted as bloodsavers.

"Draw not thy sword"

Pericles: perilous playboy or humanitarian hero?

Pericles, Prince of Tyre is a play concerned with good and bad government. Pericles endangers his own population by recklessly seeking the daughter of powerful Antiochus as a bride.

When all, for mine, if I may call offence,
Must feel war's blow, who spares not innocence:

Pericles, Pericles, Prince of Tyre (A1s2)

But in recompense, almost immediately relieves famine in Tharsus with purpose-brought grain, for which he largely wants only friendly relations and use of a port.

Pericles' attitudes to his subjects and subordinates is ambiguous. In A2s1, fishermen pity Pericles’ lost crew whose fate he seems oblivious to, though he may be half-dead with cold. While in A3s1, Pericles agrees to appease sailors’ superstitions and tosses his apparently dead queen overboard to save lives, though a fear of mutiny is also a likely motivation.

Another candidate bloodsaver in the play by vocation and practice is lordly physician Cerimon, who seems to attract honest admiration for good works (and a good work ethic).

I held it ever,
Virtue and cunning were endowments greater,
    Than nobleness and riches”

Cerimon, Pericles, Prince of Tyre (A3s2)

Pericles fears the bloodbath that could be visited on his subjects/countryfolk (by Antiochus) and takes indirect means to avoid it. Yet later, under oath to goddess Diana says he was frighted from his country. Frighted for himself, his subjects, or both?

Hamlet: Denmark in Danger

Hamlet is Shakespeare's great play about Communication. Intriguingly, for all of Prince Hamlet's soliloquies, we still have to guess about a great deal of his motivation. From early in the play, we learn of enemies without and divisions within Denmark. A sizable number of Danes appear happy that usurper-King Claudius is hosting drunken revels rather than making them go off and wage war against formidable foes in the cold shores of the Baltic. Under Hamlet's cloak of madness, he may be settling scores (Polonius) or trying to repel/entreat others to a place of safety (Ophelia).

The play's foreshadowings are a much more reliable guide to its ending than Hamlet's musings. For example, in A2s2 the player’s speech features the destruction of Troy in flames and blood. In A3s1 Claudius smells danger.

But in case you missed all this, it is spelt out by a minor character:

The cease of majesty
Does not alone; but, like a gulf, doth draw
What’s near it, with it: it is a massy wheel,
Fix’d on the summit of the highest mount,
To whose huge spokes ten thousand lesser things
Are mortis’d and adjoin’d; which, when it falls,
Each small annexment, petty consequence,
Attends the boist’rous ruin. Never alone
Did the king sigh, but with a general groan.

Rosencrantz, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (A3s3)

Hamlet learns that thousands may die battling over a patch of land:

I see
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,

Hamlet, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (A4s4)

By A4s5, Queen Gertrude fears some great amiss and King Claudius fears the resentful people led by Laertes, drawn home by father’s death, as if people should choose their own king. On the other hand, in A5s2 Hamlet relates with relish how he sealed the fate of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and pleads diminished responsibility to Laertes.

On the balance of probabilities within the text of the play, Hamlet forsees how enacting his revenge against Claudius will lead to bloodshed. On this reading, Hamlet's struggle to hold a King to justice can be read as an attempt to take the least bloody path, the means by which Gertrude, Ophelia, Laertes and others deemed not guilty will be spared (interestingly, Hamlet seems to regard Horatio as both valuable and expendable, ironically as it transpires). Shakespeare turns our attention to systems, to question why the rule of law does not apply for regal power with royal prerogative, to effectively propose election. But… do we really believe Hamlet's protestations that he does not value his own life? And how much does Hamlet really value other lives?

Henry V: premeditated war criminal

See above quote when Henry was a Prince. In Henry V A1s1, Henry protests his care not to shed blood, but it is clearly a pretence. See his father’s advice in the previous play. We later see his manipulation of traitors and mercy. Henry’s threat to French king, and particular to Harfleur, are chilling, horrifying, indeed terrorism. While soldiers before battle tell it like it is. Henry V is not a bloodsaver, though we see him pose as one when it suits.

Titus Andronicus: oops

It might seem strange to view Titus, a blood-shedding 40-year warrior for Imperial Rome, a sacrificer of a prisoner and murderer of his own son on his return, as a bloodsaver, but consider this. The homecoming warrior is both weary of blood and power but not honour “Give me a staff of honour for mine age” (A1s1), arrives unprepared for Roman politics at a wave of civil strife which immediately threatens to settle succession by open civil war. Titus (why does Rome keep repeating the mistake of electing victorious generals in Shakespeare’s plays?) is patently unsuited for civil office, unlike his diplomatic brother Marcus, and foists the even less suitable prince Saturninus on Rome, in apparent attempt to save blood on the streets.

This shows the sometimes disastrous side of blood-saving when it fails to treat the underlying problems or address politics maturely and responsibly. The younger princely brother Bassianus, already engaged to Titus’ daughter Lavinia, was the safer choice of Emperor, but whether through haste, respect for primogeniture or another reason, Titus makes this bad choice which sets the rest of the play on a tragic course. If Saturninus failed to accept Bassianus’ ascent, then likely the combined supporters of Titus, Marcus and Bassianus would have decisively prevailed in the civil conflict without weakening Rome as much as electing Saturninus does.

Undoubtedly Titus' character changes over the course of the play, distracted by grief and horror if not true repentance. When Marcus kills a fly, Titus is enraged by this tyranny over the innocent (and may not that fly have a mother and a father?), until Marcus denies the fly’s innocence. Perhaps there is a sense of Titus, so long the enforcer of Rome's 'Might is Right' imperial policing, failing to empathise with the innocent until the atrocity inflicted upon his daughter Lavinia finally (and far too late) opens his eyes, even to the point that flies might have rights.

Edmund of Langley Duke of York: the honourable exception?

When Shakespeare's dramatic projects want to stress an attribute common in a class of people, the playwright typically inserts an exception somewhere to emphasize what is the norm. Therefore Cressida is unfaithful, even though female characters are normally faithful. Prolix characters are generally politically inept, yet Gonzalo is astute. This is a powerful way of challenging stereotypes and emphasising the individual agency of characters, but also of judging social classes (the odd good king does not detract from Shakespeare's devastating critique of hereditary monarchy).

Most peace-making attempts fail in histories and tragedies (Edmund York may be an exception, but only a postponement). So we come to Richard II, and another looming civil war.

A number of characters, including the principal contenders for the throne, King Richard II and his cousin Henry (Hereford/Lancaster) Bolingbroke, make protestations about how they deeply care to spare the blood of subjects. Some notable quotes on this theme:

And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect
Of civil wounds plough’d up with neighbours’ swords

Richard II, The Life and Death of Richard the Second (A1s3)

Why have they dar’d to march
So many miles upon her peaceful bosom;
Frighting her pale-fac’d villages with war,
And ostentation of despised arms?

York, The Life and Death of Richard the Second (A2s3)

It is noticeable that really only York uses humour in the play to defuse tension and (interspersed with more assertive passages) attempts to appear both relatively harmless and yet just.

If not, I’ll use the advantage of my power,
And lay the summer’s dust with showers of blood,
Rais’d from the wounds of slaughter’d Englishmen:
The which, how far off from the mind of Bolingbroke
It is, such crimson tempest should bedrench
The fair green lap of King Richard’s land,
My stooping duty tenderly shall show.

Henry Bolingbroke, The Life and Death of Richard the Second (A3s3)

But Richard and Henry are quite happy to make such threats:

Armies of pestilence; and they shall strike
Your children yet unborn, and unbegot…
The purple testament of bleeding war;
But ere the crown he looks for live in peace,
Ten thousand bloody crowns of mothers’ sons
Shall ill become the flower of England’s face;
Change the complexion of her maid-pale peace
To scarlet indignation, and bedew
Her pastures’ grass with faithful English blood.

Richard II, The Life and Death of Richard the Second (A3s3)

So no offer of single combat, then. A contrast is immediately provided by the gardeners (A3s4) who espouse a kind of biocracy, a view that a nation should be tended for all that live in it.

Richard II is the play which begins an arc of plays covering a bloody period in English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and French history, a time of invasions, dynastic conflicts, political murder, civil war, massacres, various other war crimes and unnecessary infliction of mass suffering. We are given a foreshadowing of these future events:

And if you crown him, let me prophesy,—
The blood of English shall manure the ground,
And future ages groan for this foul act;
Peace shall go sleep with Turks and infidels,
And, in this seat of peace, tumultuous wars
Shall kin with kin, and kind with kind confound;
Disorder, horror, fear, and mutiny
Shall here inhabit, and this land be call’d
The field of Golgotha, and dead men’s sculls.
O, if you rear this house against this house,
It will the wofullest division prove,
That ever fell upon this cursed earth

Bishop of Carlisle, The Life and Death of Richard the Second (A4s1)

These likely effects are obvious enough to Carlisle, and indeed to York, who in striving to prevent them (for example, by remaining neutral in A2s3), perhaps only postpones them.

In the closing Act of the play, York privately states his allegiances to his wife, although the subtext is loyalty to the enduring state, rather than whoever currently sits on the throne:

To Bolingbroke are we sworn subjects now,
Whose state and honour I for aye allow.

York, The Life and Death of Richard the Second (A5s2)

and immediately has cause to demonstrate such allegiance. On discovering their son Aumerle’s plotted treachery, York immediately wants to turn him in, which his wife opposes.

Fond woman! were he twenty times my son,
I would appeach him.

York, The Life and Death of Richard the Second (A5s2)

All three ride separately to Henry Bolingbroke in haste. When all arrive begging, Bolingbroke sees ridiculous side (why is it ridiculous that a lord would put public duty before private dynasty? This is the key to the play). York passes the test.

The play ends with Henry Bolingbroke, now Henry IV, trying to draw a line under the bloodshed after rebels have reportedly burnt Cicester and the heads of leading traitors have been severally delivered to him: he spares the Bishop of Carlisle.

Production traditions, and what we can learn from them

Some of the key passages and even scenes I mention here have been edited, downplayed, ridiculed or even entirely omitted from productions I have seen. Rosencrantz's speech, the Yorks' plea to spare their traitor son. Do these puzzle directors, make them confused or uncomfortable? If York is a kind of traitor to the dynastic class, a lord who would sacrifice his own son in the public interest, and York is an extreme exception, and outlier, what does that say about the norms of the English ruling class? Norms that, whatever the background of directors, may have seeped into their conscious and unconscious minds from the conditioning of acceptance to social cheating the Anglo-British establishment specialise in.

Conclusion

We have looked at the phenomenon of bloodsavers in Shakespeare's theatrical works. We see mixed motives in Hector, ambivalence but also humanitarianism in Pericles, false pretence in Henry V, obscurity in Hamlet, tragic conversion to side with innocents far too late in Titus Andronicus, and a number of other characters who do not fit the template one way or another. Only the dramatic character of Edmund of Langley Duke of York (Richard II) passes the test (and only for English lives, not French or Irish) of concern to prevent general bloodshed, even at the cost of his own son's life. A character whose behaviour is so out of keeping with the rest of his social class, we are impelled to look at the character of that class. Because if all characters of a class behave alike in one respect, that behavioural attribute is more likely to go critically unexamined. An exception who, if not proving the rule of the bloodshedding elite, gives compelling evidence for it.

Shakespeare’s Bloodsavers by Sleeping Dog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to stage Shakespeare’s Macbeth as a popular uprising

Abstract

Have you ever watched Macbeth and got the impression there was something else going on in this pre-revolutionary artwork, that was realistically political rather than a magical conspiracy?

Introduction

Is there a case for staging Shakespeare’s Macbeth as a popular uprising, where the witches are not supernatural entities but revolutionaries pretending to be? I think the text supports such a possible reading. If so, how would you stage it? Like this, perhaps. How many changes would it need to the text? None, and possibly a more faithful production is possible and indeed indicated than many contemporary versions. What additions? Mostly dumbshow, to indicate the silent background activity of the revolutionaries, particularly messengers, coordinators, eavesdroppers and common soldiers.

During which explanation, some questions the play raises are answered in this light. I will use ‘revolutionaries’ for the witches’ faction(s), and ‘lords’ as a shorthand to describe the ruling Scottish class including the king, queen, princes, lords, ladies, gentry.

Revolutionaries

The first revolutionaries we see are the three witches, who are rehearsing for their meeting with Macbeth and Banquo. Other revolutionaries are servants, messengers/runners, old folk, camouflaged spies who monitor events. There are ample hints of class war in the text, but also class traitors in the pay of scheming lords.

Witches are (over)acting

The portrayal of the witches should show that they are acting supernatural parts (indeed, sometimes overacting) to con Macbeth (and to some extent Banquo, and indirectly Lady Macbeth) into taking part in their plot. The witches are professional revolutionaries but amateur actors. Hence they only dare appear twice to the most promising mark, Macbeth.

What motivates the witches?

Banquo appreciates this and says as much to Macbeth (enkindle you unto the crown). But what is the end? Shakespeare will have been familiar with the founding myths of republics such as Rome, whose people apparently kicked out their kings after exposing the rapaciousness of their ruling dynasty. Equally, the witches may be revolting against hierarchical Christianity. This raises the possibility of factions within the revolutionaries, with somewhat different motivations. Clearly, though, the aim is not just to kill any number of kings but to thoroughly discredit kingship amongst the people.

Internecine plot

It seems that the revolutionaries (witches etc) aim to use psychological warfare to ‘enkindle’ the lords into a mutually destructive conflict. They have done their research, but there are factors outside their control or influence (like the English).

Revolution HQ targets and dumb show

Staging the Revolution will probably require showing a Rebel Headquarters on stage in key scenes, perhaps literally underground compared with concurrent action. This HQ could feature large cards showing Duncan atop row of Malcolm, Donalbain, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Banquo, Macduff, perhaps Lenox, Cawdor, Rosse, Menteth, Angus, Cathness or so and such, some crossed out during play, some removed or added?

Revolution Headquarters

Class War

There are a number of indications of class war in the text. The word ‘slave’ is used as a pejorative by the lords, while lords are ‘noble’. Servants live in fear of upsetting lords. Something is brewing. Were the kerns and gallowglasses foreign freedom fighters?

Lords

Where are Macbeth’s wounds?

The wounded sergeant spins a tale of Macbeth’s toe-to-toe battlefield heroics, but this is almost immediately rendered implausible. No reference to Macbeth’s wounds are ever made (though some productions choose to show them). Indeed, Macbeth rides furiously home and his wife embraces him without comment on any hurt.

We later find that Macbeth has servants in his pay throughout the lords’ households. If we look at the over-flowery speech of the wounded sergeant, we see he falters after delivering Except they meant to bathe in reeking wounds as if he realises he has over-delivered on his tale.

Lords lie, use flowery-serpent courtesy.

Malcolm

Malcolm delivers the most devastating critique of hereditary monarchy, so much that Macduff has difficulty processing it.

Cowardice not valour is the norm

Shakespeare mocks the lords’ pretensions to valour, not just in Macbeth (who needs promise of a charmed life to enkindle him, and sends others to do his dirty work) but in his enemies like Macduff, who flees his home and family. We may suspect that common soldiers win the lords’ battle for them (Duncan conspicuously sits out battle). Not all lords are cowards, though, especially if young and seeking martial glory like Siward's son.

Superstition

A weakness of the lords’ position as a ruling class is its irrationality, so perhaps no wonder they turn to superstition. And yet dispense with it when it doesn’t suit (Macbeth: 'Twas a rough night.)

Commoners

Commoners sometimes mock courtly speech. Only a small minority will be professional revolutionaries, hence their indirect approach. Many commoners will be employed directly (or indirectly, double-paid as spies) by lords. Some are apparently desperate or vicious enough to volunteer to murder children.

Act 1

Scene 1

A meeting and rehearsal of witchy roles.

Scene 2

The ‘bloody man’ (a sergeant) contrasts with apparently unscathed Macbeth and Banquo. His testimony is flowery, therefore either created by lords for lords and rehearsed, or improvised possibly to set up power struggle. The testimonies credit only lords with victories, a second thaneship is merely a prize, not an additional onerous administrative duty.

At the mention of greeting Macbeth with Thane of Cawdor title, a revolutionary runner sets off to tip off Revolution HQ and witch revolutionaries.

Scene 3

Witches improvise (and may be overheard on heath at distance) waiting for Macbeth and Banquo. A revolutionary runner whispers in their ears. The witches’ greeting now improvised with the Thane of Cawdor news. The Revolution are at times literally underground, or camouflaged. Insane root mention may give witches ideas for later meeting.

Scene 4

Nepotism rules.

Scene 5

Attendant may overhear “metaphysical aid”, revolutionary servants may overhear Lady Macbeth, and Macbeth. look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under it

Scene 6

Lady Macbeth not sharing praise for hostess duties.

Scene 7

‘divers servants’ may be well placed to overhear.

Act 2

Scene 1

Servants placed to overhear, to project image of dagger.

Scene 2

Servants could produce the noises and voices.

Scene 3

Suggestions that Revolutionaries have been behind some of the night’s omens to put the wind up the lords.

Malcolm: There’s daggers in men’s smiles: the near in blood, the nearer bloody.

Scene 4

Old Man (possible Revolutionary) makes references to lowly birds of prey attacking mighty and internecine horse conflict, feeding lords’ unease.

Act 3

Scene 1

Macbeth: Masking the business from the common eye Royalty is not only private government, but murderous and deceitful.

Interestingly the Murderers do not directly agree to kill Fleance, something that a Revolution might consider sadly necessary for all claimants.

Scene 2

Again, servants could overhear Macbeths.

Macbeth lists treason’s tools: steel, poison, malice domestick, foreign levy.

Macbeth: Things, bad begun, make strong themselves by ill is royalty’s recipe. Essentially royals ride a crime wave.

Scene 3

Servant leads Banquo and Fleance, 3rd Murderer joins previous two. Only Banquo is killed by 1st Murderer. Did Servant and 3rd Murderer collude in letting Fleance escape? Is the Revolution reluctant to kill children?

Scene 4

1st Murderer reports Banquo’s killing and Fleance’s escape to Macbeth as Revolution stages a daring set-piece, the Macbeths’ own servants contriving the appearance (only to Macbeth) of the likeness of Banquo’s supposed ghost. No connection between Macbeth and 3rd Murderer is made.

Angles at the table should make it appear from Macbeth’s end that the opposite seat is taken but not from angles to each side.

The back of a servant’s headdress might give the illusion of a bloodied face some distance behind, whilst another servant has placed a cloth over the chair. The illusion should disappear as Lady Macbeth draws close to her husband’s view angle.

Reappears, disappears as obviously designed, marked, rehearsed, reacting to any changes in sightlines.

Macbeth reveals he has a paid servant as his agent and eyes in every Lord’s house, so why not the Revolution a true believer in each too? Maybe the same servant even.

Scene 5

Does Hecate represent a disgruntled self-styled leader or vanguard of the Revolution? Is this stylised magical cant put on to confuse royalist infiltrators?

Hecate: And you all know, security Is mortal’s chiefest enemy.

Scene 6

The Scottish lords appear too weak to move against an apparent regicide and tyrant, one meaning of Lenox’s Things have been strangely borne

Act 4

Scene 1

Witches prepare for, and be overheard by, Macbeth.

2nd Witch By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes is crying out to be hammily overdone and cackle-ended, inviting rolling eyes from other witches.

Revolutionaries have practised their special effects, probably throw a bit of insane root into the cauldron, and researched Macbeth’s fears, MacDuff’s birth and Dunsinane’s approaches. Ingredients may obviously be unlike their labels or incongruously packaged. The Revolutionaries plan to stir Macbeth into further outrages against lords to bring about internecine conflict. Which works.

Scene 2

Lady Macduff calls her husband’s flight unnatural and a mother wren decidedly more valorous.

He wants the natural touch: for the poor wren, The most diminutive of birds, will fight, Her young ones in her nest, against the owl.

The messenger who brings warning could be a revolutionary, but one who breaks with or keeps policy?

Scene 3

Revolutionaries will follow to the English court but keep quiet during scene. Have they, not just Macbeth, tried to work on Malcolm?

Malcolm may be testing Macduff, but is also laying bare the true nature of kingship. For example:

Malcolm: I grant him bloody, luxurious, avaricious, false, deceitful, sudden, malicious, smacking of every sin that has a name but claims he will be much worse still. The silently-watching Revolutionaries may nod in agreement.

Lenox: Would create soldiers, make our women fight this is essentially the Revolutionary plan, although to the end of removing the last lords standing.

Act 5

Scene 1

The waiting gentlewoman and doctor of physick well know that the crimes of their masters are dangerous to report on.

Doctor: Foul whisperings are abroad presumably some spread by Revolution.

Scene 2

It seems that the Revolutionaries have chosen Dunsinane for Macbeth’s downfall and planned for a host to travel through Birnam Wood, but have they miscalculated on English power? They seem to need foreign aid since Macbeth appears to have admirers even now of his 'valiant fury'. This is the problem with people who expect one monarch or another to rule over them.

Scene 3

It is a bit late for Macbeth to worry about the health of Scotland, having long had what his wife once called the sickness that should attend power.

Scene 4

Clearly, Revolutionaries amongst the soldiery are already prompting Malcolm’s order to camouflage themselves with branches. Like a Lord he wants to take all credit, of course.

Scene 5

The cry of women signify Lady Macbeth’s death. For good measure, the Messenger should be a Revolutionary to describe a moving wood rather than camouflaged troops.

Scene 6

Revolutionaries in Army are surely in contact with those in Dunsinane and are aware their ruse has worked.

Scene 7

Macbeth is now trapped and cannot fly, emerging onto plain before castle.

Macduff expresses pity: I cannot strike at wretched kernes, whose arms are hir’d to bear their staves

Maybe one of the witches was Macduff’s mother’s midwife?

Again Macbeth is exposed as a coward, relying on charmed protection, but fears humiliation by Malcolm and the rabble’s curse, although probably hasn’t realised that the rabble’s curse has brought him down already.

Malcolm is crowned king after Macduff kills Macbeth, and horror of horror, creates new earls.

Failure of the Revolution to Establish Popular Government

So, on this interpretation, where did the Revolution go wrong? Did they underestimate the Lords’ hydra-like ability to spawn new Lords to replace those killed in this engineered conflict? Or are they waiting until the English are gone? Do they have a narrative to compete with Malcolm’s? What exactly were the witches’ motives? Were the witches pagans, and was the Revolution also against Christianity, or perhaps religious differences split and weakened it? Do the Revolutionaries start wearing identical blue-brown-green triangle-patterned clothing, and end up in separate blue, brown and green factions, each represented by a different witch? The customary division of witches into Maid, Mother and Crone may help here.

Conclusion

The witches may make more sense in the context of the play, Macbeth, as revolutionaries rather than as supernatural beings. They do not possess more knowledge than could be gathered by eavesdroppers and relayed by messengers. Their acts are performances tried out on Macbeth and briefly Banquo. Certain aspects of the play make more sense as part of an orchestrated internecine plot by republican commoners against corrupt lords. Shakespeare’s play Macbeth can be staged as a popular uprising without changing any text, with the addition of some extras like dumbshow and stage directions for the revolutionary faction.

How to stage Shakespeare’s Macbeth as a popular uprising by Sleeping Dog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.