Examine Shakespeare’s manipulation of disguise, deception and illusion in one or two plays from the module. To manipulate is a curious verb that itself presents two very defined meanings: ‘To handle, esp. with skill or dexterity; to turn, reposition, reshape, etc. , manually or by means of a tool or machine’, or ‘To manage, control, or influence in a subtle, devious, or underhand manner’. [1] The ambiguity that follows such a verb can usually be cleared with a sufficient context but the ambiguity of Shakespeare’s uses of manipulation can be a little bit more equivocal.
With this being said, we could approach his ‘manipulation’ of disguise, deception and illusion in two ways: The ‘dexterity’ in which he develops a plot including a perceptible use of those three analogues. The less noticeable ‘influence’ of Shakespeare upon his texts through the use of disguise, deception and illusion, in order to cleverly accomplish something, which could be, for example, a specific audience response. It seems logical to discuss firstly what it is not hidden in the text; all the information a simple reader can gather from the storyline.
Thus, what follows is merely an approach and interpretation of the two histories that we have studied in this module ‘The Plays of Shakespeare’, Henry V and Julius Caesar (English and Roman histories respectively). Secondly, a study of what is intended within the plays, that is to say a representation through the voice of some critics of what is behind the plot will be discussed later. Undoubtedly, Shakespeare displays enormous rhetorical ability, very frequent during the Elizabethan period. His works provide a wide range of literary devices combined with a complex syntax.
In Act IV, Scene I in Henry V, we observe how in the battle, the king dresses up as a commoner in order to find out what the soldiers think of him, only to discover the low moral that they had as they were outnumbered in the battle. This then lead him to deliver an influential speech to raise the spirit of the warriors. There is another more striking element surfacing the plot: the rhetorical disguise. In many occasions, the disguise shows up in a rather linguistic way.
That is to say, the characters seem to ‘dress up’ the true meaning of the words, delivering a more desired message to the audience or manipulating the actions of other characters. For instance, the story begins with the Archbishop of Canterbury discussing with the Bishop of Ely the need to come up with a plan that will divert the direction of the new law. With this in mind, the Archbishop of Canterbury prepares himself to give an extended speech to the king where he “assures” Henry that the procedure of invading France is completely legal.
At first sight, it was inevitable to think that the invasion occurs as a manipulative action carried out by the church to save their interests. CANTERBURY He seems indifferent, Or rather swaying more upon our part Than cherishing the exhibiters against us; For I have made an offer to his majesty, Upon our spiritual convocation And in regard of causes now in hand, Which I have open’d to his grace at large, As touching France, to give a greater sum[2] There is yet another manipulation that is taking place in this very conversation between the King and the Archbishop.
The king’s intention is concealed in his language in this scene as a means of ‘exculpating’ himself from any responsibilities. HENRY And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord, That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading, Or nicely charge your understanding soul With opening titles miscreate, whose right Suits not in native colours with the truth; For God doth know how many now in health Shall drop their blood in approbation Of what your reverence shall incite us to. [3] This motive has been put forward by Greenburg Bradley in his essay “O for a muse of fire”: Henry V and Plotted Self-Exculpation.
In at least four pivotal scenes in Henry V, the play presents a king who performs a strategy of plotted self-exculpation. By this I mean that he contrives to shift responsibility to others at critical times of decision making without their being aware that this is happening. As it is mentioned above, there are similarities in Henry’s actions in at least four other scenes. Here we find another example when we learn that the King knows about the treachery of the three men: Cambridge, Scroop and Grey.
He asks for their advice on how to approach the case of a drunken man to which they all respond that he should be punished. The King uses this response to establish the punishment that these three men should then receive, as it is what they deemed to be fairest, leaving himself out of any responsibility; the “plotted self-exculpation” Bradley suggested in his theory. HENRY When capital crimes, chew’d, swallow’d and digested, Appear before us? We’ll yet enlarge that man, Though Cambridge, Scroop and Grey, in their dear care And tender preservation of our person, Would have him punished.
And now to our French causes. [4] Henry V proves to be a cunning manipulator; a sagacious schemer; a subtle contriver; a leader or even a Machiavelli but there is yet another character worth mentioning who similarly evokes the creation of a schemed plan: Antony, from Julius Caesar. Antony is not looking for self-exculpation but rather self-salvation from the killers. He simulates an association with Caesar’s murderers: “For Brutus is an honorable man; So are they all, all honorable men. ”[5] and he tries to manipulate the public in order to cause a rift between them and the conspirators.
Antony, as one of the closest friends of Julius Caesar, shows then a series of contradictions in his admiration towards him. 2. Deception The theme of deception and dishonesty is evident throughout Shakespeare’s histories and one can easily explore the very nature of power linked to the representation of weakness of the human character. In the case of Julius Caesar, this theme is portrayed in several different ways. The figures of Cassius and Brutus, despite being both part of the conspiracy, are completely contrasting characters.
For the reason it could be interpreted as the two possible ways of committing treachery and of deceiving someone: o Brutus is seen as an amiable character. He is naive and noble, an idealist with strong moral values. He becomes an ally with the conspirators under the belief that Rome comes before Caesar. Furthermore, as he gains dominance, he prevents them from also killing Antony and in doing so underestimate him at the end: “For Antony is but a limb of Caesar”. [6] o Cassius, on the other hand, has further motives in the conspiracy; fulfilling his ambition.
One of them was the use of chorus, although this time the chorus tended to be a single person rather than a group of people. On the one hand, it served as an introduction to the play that would call the audience’s attention, but more importantly, it served as a device to pull the public and the play together. The Elizabethan Period had a few numbers of theatres that were beginning to gain prestige. Generally, they presented a globe where there was no sufficient light during the night, so the plays had to be performed during the day.
Having a stage in the open air, not only meant the acoustics were consequently inadequate but they also lacked proper scenography. [7] It may be a bit odd by comparing it with the theatre at that very same moment in Spain, Italy and other countries with a longer history of popular theatre, where there was a tendency to over-exaggerate the decorations and costumes, with a very rich background scenery. It has been argued that the ’relatively little scenery’ was employed in an attempt to invite the audience to use their imagination, that the decorations acted mainly as a suggestion.
That is why authors like Shakespeare helped the actors with a theatrical illusion, a chorus. “The Chorus’s function is not just to complain of the inadequacies of the theatre but to enlist us in the effort to overcome them . He works on us as Henry works on his men”[8]. As an example, we have the introduction of Henry V beginning with a chorus of a single actor informing and expressing what cannot be performed on stage and has to therefore be developed individually by every member of the audience’s mind. CHORUS But pardon, and gentles all,
The flat unraised spirits that have dared 10 On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth So great an object: can this cockpit hold The vasty fields of France? or may we cram Within this wooden O the very casques That did affright the air at Agincourt? 15 O, pardon! since a crooked figure may Attest in little place a million; And let us, ciphers to this great accompt, On your imaginary forces work[9]. The supernatural Nevertheless, not all the images that Shakespeare plays with are embodied by the chorus; he also works with his magnificent language the supernatural.
This element is probably more common in other plays, like Macbeth, but small traces can also be found that gives the play power and strength, and most importantly, it enhances an illusion for the public to become engaged. For example, the incredible strength and courage that the English soldiers proved to have in the play when, despite the fact that they were severely outnumbered, they finally defeated their opponent, the French Army. An illusion of this kind has the ability to both amuse and raise the audience’s patriotic spirit at the same time.
Further illustrating this point is the return of Henry V’s rhetoric in his motivational speech to raise the moral of the soldiers and the expectance of the public. In Julius Caesar this element appears much more frequently than in Henry V yet is clearly intended to portray a different purpose. Whereas in Henry V it was used to pull the audience and the play together, in this case, illusion appears as an opposition to reality, which is eventually affected by this. In the Elizabethan period, the incorporation to literature of the supernatural beliefs was commonplace and so this was not a simple coincidence.
Many scholars and historians have remarked that superstitions were naturally included in the everyday and it seems to have its roots in the Dark Ages. Fear, religion and the uncertainty of the unknown were common motives consequently disguised in witchcraft, ghosts, omens, etc. Therefore, in this play on several occasions the fatal event is implied at. For example, starting with the storm or “tempest” at the end of Act 1 in a conversation between the orator Cicero and Casca where he prepares to tell a series of strange events that foretell the evil. CASCA But never till tonight, never till now, Did I go through a tempest dropping fire.
Either there is a civil strife in heaven, Or else the world, too saucy with the gods, Incenses them to send destruction. [10] What is more, the inclusion of dreams and omens is another implication of the fatal event. Caesar’s wife Calpurnia experiences an obscure dream where the statue of her husband is bleeding through a hundred holes, surrounded by other Romans figures that have come to wash their hands with his blood. CAESAR She dreamt tonight she saw my statue, Which like a fountain with an hundred spouts, ?Did run pure blood, and many lusty Romans ?Came smiling and did bathe their hands in it.
However, Caesar as a brave and rational man does not seem to agree that such superstitious beliefs can rule one’s life. Instead he acts as an opposition to the illusion and expresses that the man has to face his fears so that they will eventually disappear. The character of Cicero portrays similar manners. It is in his conversation with Casca where he reveals that the strange events could be explained in different ways, not just as a mere representation of the evil. Scene V, Act V incorporates the visit of Caesar’s ghost.
The intention of such inclusion is to communicate Brutus where he must go; the place where he will find death. BRUTUS The ghost of Caesar hath appear’d to me Two several times by night; at Sardis once, And, this last night, here in Philippi fields: I know my hour is come. (…) The intention of this essay is to describe the use or “manipulation” of the three devices mentioned in the title in the plays that have been studied in the module. However, as it was introduced at the beginning, there is also the possibility to discuss an approach to what is actually intended by Shakespeare’s plays.
Nothing can be said as an absolute truth as it happens with every other writer. There is nonetheless the possibility of comparing the reality of the stories that are narrated within the narration itself. There are critics that argue that England was suffering a period of instability after the fall of the Spanish Armada, followed by the definitive establishment of the Protestantism as the official religion in the country. The people were lost and the need of a common national feeling was becoming evident. [11]
It seems possible that Shakespeare used the historical events to empower this national identity that England was lacking and in order to accomplish this, it could be said that there was a very obvious manipulation of the history. Some examples suggested by (Say his name, profesores love that) are: (citar) -It took five years to surrender to France after the battle of Agincourt, it did not happen immediately. -The battle was not only carried out by the soldiers and Henry. An alliance with Burgundy and the cooperation of the naval forces also helped in the favoring result.
The text’s main point it is not to argue about Shakespeare’s accuracy in historical events but rather the fact that while rewriting these events he was enumerating a series of qualities that a king should have. “Shakespeare’s Henry V further transforms the evolving English identity through the play’s central character: Henry. Shakespeare alters events and compresses time, ultimately to make Henry V look the victor. Shakespeare wants to portray King Henry as the ultimate hero: noble, humble, and strong”. He manipulates the context and speaks of England as a nation that needs cooperation between the Church and The King to declare war.
The importance of the moral values and the legal justifications were obtained by religion. “Shakespeare, through Henry, sets a precedent in Elizabethan times of asking the Archbishop for moral justification for going to war. He is furthering the “religious identity” of England by indicating that England and the Church were united in their decision-making. England did not, and will not, go to war without moral and legal justifications” (citar esto) Much more interesting appears to be the possible intention of Julius Caesar, widely considered by many as Political Propaganda.
It should also be pointed out the similarities that can be drawn of the situation of England with those of the Roman Republic of Julius Caesar. By the time this play was performed, Queen Elizabeth’s permanent state of virginity had the result of a monarchy without heirs, which was causing concerns and fear of an imminent civil war, providing that her health was starting to decay. It might have been intended as a prevention of what had already been happening: attempts against her life or rather as a way to make the public think with more depth about political and moral issues. More spectacular and sustained is the scene in >> Julius Caesar in which both Brutus and Mark Antony address not only the crowd in the Roman forum over the dead body of Caesar, but also, inevitably, the audience. Given that the play was probably the first performed at the newly built Globe Theatre it is hard to believe its rhetorical effects were not carefully thought through. (13) Mark Antony’s famous speech appears designed to force an audience in 1599 to think about the brutal reality of political assassination, or, perhaps, simply the imminent death of their monarch…
Mark Antony’s speech forces the audience to worry about what they do and do not know. Can anyone be sure a ruler deserves to die? “ Censorship has always been a useful tool as prevention from writers to express their ideas in a direct manner and the necessity of involuntarily reflecting one’s actual thoughts have a way in hiding things underneath the words. Regarding the validity and accuracy of these affirmations or theories, it is unknown to what extent they are correct or not.
