Shakespeare's Method - Common Modes, Uncommon Reflection

Shakespeare lived in a time when rebellion was extinguished swiftly and mercilessly. To actually challenge authority and hold a mirror up to the public of his time, he had to do so stealthily. He did this through his writings, utilizing well-known styles and stories to merge the familiar with the revolutionary. Reading and discussing many of his plays, one might attempt to discern their meanings by examining the subtexts of the stories, and seeking deeper meanings than those that are plainly obvious. The hidden and deeper meanings of his works were often illuminating, while at the same time nonconformist.

Shakespeare's method of reintroducing the familiar and recognizable is accomplished through use of themes. Many common themes can be found throughout his writing, including Justice, Authority versus Chaos, and Reconciliation. Additionally, in the three works I will be comparing, there is an obvious contrast between appearance and reality. This relates to the confusion of roles in real life.

The confusion of roles in real life is an issue that Shakespeare has undertaken many a time. The roles of the majority, traditionalism, and the just are seen to be in constant struggle with the minority, individualism, and the unjust; the oppressor dominates the oppressed. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to determine just which side is in the right, and Shakespeare points this out.

Calling attention to major issues within a society might, on occasion, cause quite an uproar. Knowing this, Shakespeare chose to make his criticisms casual, subtle, and almost subconscious. Intertwining deep revelations about the woes of the social order with a popular form of entertainment proves an effective method. Not only was he successful in making his point, he survived to make many more points.

In The Taming of The Shrew, Shakespeare tackled the idea of feminism emerging in a patriarchal society. The concept is interesting today, but in his day, may have been considered laughable or fairly shocking. He would need to be careful not to make waves, and writing this piece as a comedy works quite well at avoiding commotion. Aside from the type of play being familiar, Shakespeare's use of contrasting and evolving roles makes it reasonably entertaining. The shrew Katharine is introduced as an almost savage woman who cares for no one, and follows no rules. She is out of control and out of place in a patriarchal society. A near perfect contrast, Bianca is Kate's sister. She is a made out to be a picture perfect example of a woman in the play's setting. Kate's suitor, Petruchio enters as someone who is interested only in money, and may well be insane. He is also the only man strong enough to counter Kate's outlandish behavior.

Petruchio is a fine example of the theme of authority versus chaos. The man is very nearly impossible to understand, speaking in riddles sometimes, making lude jokes, and constantly being difficult. He is, however, the authority in this case, and is working seemingly wildly toward his goal. His strength in the face of a woman bent on individuality is to fight fire with fire. He acts completely off the wall, putting Kate off balance. This chaotic authority figure does get his way when Kate, at last, gives in.

Throughout the story, many of the roles of the characters evolve to the point at which, by the end of the play, they are nearly unrecognizable. Petruchio has softened up a bit, Kate has conformed, and even the exemplary Bianca shows her impudence by disobeying her husband. The evolution of the roles is a story-telling technique that Shakespeare uses to show that one's appearance is not necessarily indicative of how they truly are. As well as making that point, making Kate finally submit at the end is a way of tidying things up, and making a reconciliation. The concept of a women disobeying men criticizes the very type of society in which the writer and his audience exist. Because of this, all stresses and pressures created by Kate's unacceptable behavior and ideas must be relieved by the end. The idea of women's rights has been abolished with the feminist's conformity, acquiescing to her role as the compliant female.

So, by the end of the play, one might say things were returned to normal, and the crowds were put at ease. The same can be said for The Merchant of Venice. In this work, today's audience would easily recognize the issues involved. Again, Shakespeare plays on the issue of appearances and realities, having Bassanio borrow money to appear more successful than he truthfully is. This is trivial, when considered next to the roles of the majority and the minority in the play.

In The Merchant of Venice, the majority is made up of Christians, and the minority consists of Jews. In his day, the majority, the Christians were understood as the just, and the minority, the Jew was understood to be unjust. Shakespeare takes it upon himself to question this, criticizing religious discrimination. The roles of the just and the unjust are very interesting in this play. One could call this comedy a tragedy if he so chose to. The comedy of the money lender and his twist of fates pales in comparison to the tragedy of the Jew whose livelihood and beliefs are stripped from him.

The Jew was discriminated against, and ultimately destroyed by the close-minded Christian majority, in the name of justice. This is interesting because we see this act of justice as a great injustice. To strip a man of his identity can hardly be understood as the human thing to do, particularly because of the manner in which it was carried out. The appearance of the Christians as the just is questioned because of their cruelty and inhumanity, while the role of the Jew is questioned because of his chronic maltreatment. Upon examination, the true roles of the characters are nearly completely reversed.

The theme of authority versus chaos is recognizable in the court scene when Portia poses as a lawyer. A woman dressing up as a man, attempting to save the life of her new husband's dear friend from a blood-thirsty money lender, by way of pleading with him to show mercy to someone who despises him for no good reason is certainly a situation that I would deem chaotic. In this case, Portia is posing as an authority, and manages to find a way to turn the tables on Shylock. Then, to add to the disarray, as a sort of reconciliation, Antonio is given the authority to convert Shylock to a Christian. Such cruelty in the face of such chaos is lamentable.

Unfortunately, the ideas of the Christians being malicious and cruel, and the Jew being deserving of pity would probably not sit well with an undoubtedly entirely Christian audience. To deal with this, again, Shakespeare tidies up the ending, inviting us to witness the characters celebrating, and carrying on, living happily ever after. The end of the play is very light-hearted, and washes the thought of discrimination completely from the minds of the viewers, while at the same time, acts as proof of the success of the reconciliation.

In King Lear, we are shown the strong examples of false appearances when Lear arrogantly demands a showing of love from his daughters. The two daughters that give him the type of showing he was expecting are truthfully the daughters that love him the least. On the other end of the spectrum, the daughter that gives him the response that he least enjoys is the one who truly loves him. Shakespeare criticizes things as fundamental as poor parent-child relationships and basic human selfishness. Lear desires to be flattered by his daughters and in his anger, punishes the one who loved him most. He does not understand that Cordelia chooses not to embellish her love for him, and he banishes her; so begins the tragedy.

With Cordelia being banished, we see one example of the theme of justice when we contemplate why the evil daughters were rewarded, while the good one was punished. Though at the same time, this is where the authority versus chaos theme comes into play. Unfortunately for everyone, when Lear gives up his authority, the country is thrown almost immediately into chaos. From that point on, it seems that the entire play in unjust and chaotic.

There is a point at which Lear realizes that Cordelia truly does love him, and hoped to have her forgiveness. Amidst all the chaos, he found love and saw it as his redemption. He made his reconciliation. It would seem that that would lead toward happier conditions, but it does not. At the end of the play, evil is punished, but the good die along with them, begging the question, "Is this justice?"

Since King Lear was indeed a tragedy, a neat and tidy ending similar to those of Taming and Merchant would simply not make sense, though it's interesting to note that the ending is one of the most depressing in all literature. The only solace to be found in it is from knowing that the king did finally realize his daughter's love, the chaos was ended, and evil had been punished; the familiar themes had been exercised.

Shakespeare's works contain meaning within the obvious story. These hidden principles reflect upon the society of which he was a part. The subtlety with which they were rendered leads me to believe that Shakespeare did see the issues dealt with in sub context as important, as well as touchy. In order to criticize a real social problem without creating another, he had to make his point cautiously. Through his writings, utilizing familiar methods, he was able to mix old lessons with new ones without raising too many eyebrows.