Honor in All’s Well that Ends Well

Honor in All’s Well that Ends Well

Between 1601 and 1605, William Shakespeare wrote a group of three plays commonly known as the « problem plays ». These plays show a distinct cleavage from his previous comedies and tragedies. They differ from the others in the way their action focuses on problematical ethical questions which prove difficult to address within a comical structure. Their strangeness is such that it was not until 1896 that a more distinct definition was suggested by F.S. Boa, the same definition applied to the plays of Shaw and Ibsen, namely ‘problem plays’: All these dramas introduce us into highly artificial societies, whose civilization is ripe unto rottenness. Amidst such media abnormal conditions of brain and of emotion are generated, and intricate cases of conscience demand a solution by unprecedented methods. Thus throughout these plays we move along dim untrodden paths, and at the close our feeling is neither of simple joy nor pain; we are excited, fascinated, perplexed, for the issues raised preclude a completely satisfactory outcome, even when, as in All’s Well and Measure for Measure, the complications are outwardly adjusted in the fifth act. In Troilus and Cressida… no such partial settlement of difficulties takes place, and we are left to interpret their enigmas as best we may. Dramas so singular in theme and temper cannot be strictly called comedies or tragedies. We may therefore borrow a convenient phrase from the theater of today and class them together as Shakespeare’s problem-plays.2 This definition well renders the essence of these particular plays ‘presenting no transcript from life3 ‘, where complications of existence are depicted and where no clear and precise solution is offered. It is evidently not surprising that they barely had any effect on the Renaissance general public, who simply could not relate to them. A recent renewal of interest in modern audiences and critics for the problem plays has been noted. The ‘highly artificial societies and civilizations ripped unto rottenness4 ‘ depicted in the problem plays as the social matters treated in them seem to find echo in the complexity of modern times. These plays are delivered in a way that, not only trigger interest or emotion from the modern audience, but also fathom the intricate questions on correlation between the characters, the way they see themselves, and the way their actions in contexts open to a multitude of moral interpretations.

My interest in these plays is limited to the main characters’ capacity to act. Isabella, Bertram, and Hector are caught in situations where they are confronted with a difficult choice between opposite principles. The chosen option is always the most controversial. What pushes Isabella to prefer her chastity to her brother’s life? Why does Bertram prefer the dangers of war to the comfort of matrimonial life? What incites Hector to endanger the life of thousands of Trojans in the name of honor? The purpose of this thesis is to provide an answer to these questions. I would like to argue that the main characters of these plays develop a sense of who they are and articulate an identity by being oriented towards what they consider their ultimate good .

« …More than our brother is our chastity31 » Self-interpretation and Chastity in Measure for Measure :

If great plays were meant to provoke strong reactions from audiences, then Measure for Measure would be a sure contender for the « most provocative of Shakespeare’s entire work » award. Its unusual plot and unconventional dramatis personae surely make it a source of critical divergence among scholars of all times. Measure for Measure32 , presumably the last of the « problem plays/’ is thought to have been written in late 1603 and was first performed on December 26th of that same year for the newly enthroned King James I. Very few comedies were written during this particular period, and the comedies that were written were different from the joyous, cheerful comedies of the 1590’s. As in all of Shakespeare’s plays, Measure for Measure addresses concerns of the age. The questions of religious doctrine, abuse of power, sexual decadence – as the questions of gender roles – and male supremacy revealed in this problematic comedy confirm a complex reflection on its own epoch’s obscure side of human reality, a side still very valid today. These themes set the action and move the play into the tragic/comic ambiguity that bewilders both audiences and experts. Nearly all aspects of Measure for Measure are subjects for dispute in criticism. For John Dry den, the play is « meanly written that the Comedy neither caus ‘d your mirth, nor the serious part your concernment ». In a similar way, S. T. Coleridge sees it as « the single exception to the delightfulness of Shakespeare’s plays. (…..) a hateful work although Shakespearian throughout34 ». E. M. W. Tillyard compares the play to « a genuinely abnormal child whom no efforts will ever bring back to normality35 ». More recently, Charlotte R. Lennox who defines it as being « disordered and ethically incoherent36 » definitely sets Measure for Measure as, in Keats’ words, « …a thoroughfare for all thoughts ».

This « comedy » takes place in Renaissance Vienna. The subject matter seems rather simple: Isabella, a young novice, comes to implore Angelo, a magistrate, to spare the life of her brother Claudio who is sentenced to death. The magistrate states that he will spare his life if she submits to the magistrate sexually. However,, the scenario hovering around the story is more intricate. The Duke of Vienna, a clement and permissive character, rules over a city that is tainted with solecism, depravity, and immorality. Corruption and sex are a lifestyle in this society. The dilemma here is, without a doubt, moral and social; that is, foul corruption stemming from concupiscence and misapplication of legal authority, as vividly portrayed by the Duke: « … My business in this state made me a looker-on here in Vienna, where I have seen corruption boil and bubble till it o’errun the stew » (V.i: 315-318). Not only is the city undermined by laxity, but justice and sanctions against violating the law are inconsistent and disproportionate as well. In Measure for Measure, disparity is an evident feature both in the importance of the crimes and in the punishment imposed consequently.

The positions of courtier and soldier held distinct functions. The first focused on Shakespeare and Castiglione’s ideal of the Renaissance courtier; that is, an individual who fashions him or herself in the prime courtly values of loyalty, magnanimity, and honour. Furthermore, the courtier is one who pursues self-knowledge focussed on social consciousness rather than on personal designs; one in which « virtues of the humanistic scholar… are united with those of the medieval knight… whose main purpose is to glorify the monarch » at any cost. Courtesy books mention that birthright made one pre-disposed to virtue by rendering the appropriate environment to make it possible84 . Conversely, Bertram’s heritage supplies exactly that. Since birth, Bertram has dwelled in virtue of the accomplished, erudite scholar; he has been taught the classics and is honour-bounded by this heritage. Bertram has acceded to his social position, ward to the King, and he is willing and ready to assume his new official functions, and willingly embraces the responsibilities linked to them: Bertram: »And I in going, madam, weep o’er my father’s Death anew; but I must attend his majesty’s command, To whom I now in ward, evermore in subjection. »

The young man is conscious of the implication of his new role. As a king’s ward, he is ready to play this role where specific duties as a courtier are appointed and expected of the candidate. The second function of a ward is that of a soldier, a knight ready to virtuously give his life for his country, for his King, for his people, and through their acknowledgement for his good actions, gains the ultimate gift of honour. The private soldier status demands of Bertram that he bestow « honour due unto kings and governors: the reason why, and because God hath set them ‘for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well85 . » As part of aristocracy and everything it implies, Bertram holds royal authority in the highest esteem and reverence. In « Man’s Chief Good » Mustapha Fahmi claims that Shakespeare’s characters become human agents because they are engaged in a continuous dialogue or dispute with those who matter to them86 . The following excerpt shows a genuine example of a significant dialogue between Bertram and those he considers his most meaningful interlocutors to whom he owes all esteem, the king and the Countess. Consequently, he vows utter respect to the King and certainly complies with the royal power conferring honour and reward onto those who are revealed worthy of it, as punishing those in wrongdoings. Additionally, the Monarch equally holds Bertram in high regard for the young ward happens to be his best friend’s son. He considers Bertram as his own. The King eloquently shows his profound appreciation, affection, and attachment to Bertram’s father:

King: I would I have that corporal soundness now
As when thy father and myself in friendship
First tried our soldiership. He did look far
Into the service of the time, and was
Discipled of the bravest…. It much repairs me
To talk of your good father; in his youth
He had the wit which I can well observe
Today in our young lords;
So like a courtier, contempt nor bitterness
Were in his pride, or sharpness. If they were
His equal had awaked them, and his honor,
Clock to itself know the true minute when
Exception bid him speak, and at his time
His tongue obeyed his hand. Who were below him
He used as creatures of another place,
And bowed his eminent top to their low ranks,
Making them proud of his humility,
In their poor praise he humbled. Such a man
Might be a copy to these younger times,
Which, followed well, would demonstrate them now
But goers backward.
Bertram: His good remembrance, sir,
Lies richer in your thoughts than on his tomb.
So in approof lives not his epitaph
As in your royal speech.

Bertram listens with uttermost attentiveness to the King reminisce about the valiance, the acute military skills, and the glory of his precious friend, the late Count of Rossillion. Tales such as the King’s are the channel through which virtue is transmitted to the forthcoming generations of heroic societies, where soldiers and warriors will be looked upon as the archetype of virtue. Such tales are a channel through which « one way we both discover, and also create, who we are, because it is a representation of the world and life… it is an imitation not of persons but of actions and life. In a good story one can recognize oneself, not as one is but as one wishes to be. It provides a representation of a higher self, noble, wise, courageous and good. It provides people with a version of the accomplished self one strives to be87 ». In all evidence, the importance that the King’s tale has on Bertram, an enthusiastic youth, most certainly has its effect on what he wants to be. The young lord is mesmerized by his father’s fame and radiant reputation. This determines his preferred purpose in life. His father was a fearless, courageous, virtuous and diplomatic soldier. These praises, more than ever, emphasize Bertram’s wish and duty to live up to his father’s « honored name » (I.iii: 152), earn a reputation of his own, and show his worth to the King. During the Renaissance, « the word arete, later to be translated as ‘virtue’, is in the Homeric poems used for excellence of any kind; … a son excels in his father in every kind of arete – as athlete, as soldier and in mind . » Alasdair Maclntyre argues that, in the Renaissance, this concept of virtue was considered the centre element in the understanding of human greatness and worth. This concept certainly prevails in the establishment of Bertram’s « background of intelligibility, the framework crucial to the articulation of identity89 . Thus, it is exclusively in dialogue with the royal authority’s discourse that Bertram sets the limits of what Charles Taylor designates as « moral space », a point of view from which one can decide what is good or bad, what is to be accepted and what is to be opposed90 . He chooses to embody what his cherished and esteemed father was « in manner and in shape » (Li: 62), and defines it as what he wants to be a soldier.

For many around him, Hector is more committed to public reputation than he is to authentic honor as he should be according to the Aristotelian notion of honor. The Hellenic knight’s motivations are more directed towards enhancing his reputation. He assigns extreme importance to what others see in him and think of him. It is his way to « negotiate his identity in dialogue with others since it crucially depends on one’s dialogical relations with others140 . His perception of honor and his pledge to pride enhance his quixotic behavior in fame and hierarchy as well. For instance, the man of noble birth that he is, Hector will not debase himself to fight regular warriors on the battlefield, in accordance with the neochivalric concept of honor141 . He will not hesitate to ask Thersites: Hector: What art thou, Greek? Art thou for Hector’s match? Art thou of blood and honor? (V,iv ;25 26) He then evaluate whether his effort of fighting and killing Thersites is worthy of his grandeur. « Valour and pride excel themselves in Hector… and that which looks like pride is courtesy » (IV.v: 79-82). To others, Hector’s honor exceeds the standards of the Aristotelian definition of honor as a reasoned, internal virtue impelling a man to noble deeds, and into a sense-centered external show stemming from attributes conferred by others. This view, however, is the kind of information available to external observers. Information such as color, gender and social status might be interesting to know, but has only partial bearing on the way one makes sense of one’s own character from a first-person point of view142 . However, this does provide an interesting insight into what others think of Hector in comparison to his conception of his identity. For Hector, honor and nobility are gained through merit, and are not as valuable if obtained only from birth. As merit is defined as claim to respect and praise, it is unconditionally and inescapably unattainable without dialogue with others. For a noble personage as Hector, « honor is conferred by one’s peers and without honor a man is without worth143 ». No matter what others might think of him, is how he conceived himself is what is important. Hector builds his identity according to the dialogue circulating around him. He wants to be a chivalric, princely warrior and the words diffused around him suit him just fine. To interpret himself, Hector does not have to exist in accordance with how others see him .

CONCLUSION:

In this thesis, I tried to show how the protagonists of the problem plays take positions according to their notions of good, which they evaluated as the worthiest and highest goals of all. In the process, an explanation was provided for the actions they were willing to take, no matter how questionable those actions may be. These actions are taken to insure that their notions of the good would lead them to happiness. I have attempted to decipher the way each chosen character interprets his or herself through those who matter to them.

Table des matières

INTRODUCTION 
« …More Than our Brother Is our Chastity » Self-interpretation and Chastity in
Measure for Measure
« To-morrow I’ll to Wars, She to her Single Sorrow » Self-Interpretation and
Honor in All’s Well that Ends Well
« Mine Honour Keeps the Weather of my Fate » Self-Interpretation and Fame
in Troilus and Cressida
CONCLUSION

Télécharger le rapport complet