SHAKESPEARE' S LOVE MYTHOLOGY I N VENUS AND ADONIS,

A MIDSUMMER-NIGHT ' S DMAM AND ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA .

by
D o r o t h y An n e H u n g e r f o r d
B.A. S i mo n Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , Bu r n a b y , B.C., 1 9 6 8
A THESI S SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
I n t he D e p a r t me n t
of
E n g l i s h
DOROTHY ANNE HUNGERFORQ 1 9 7 5
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Ma r c h , 1 9 7 5
Approval
Name : Anne Hunger ford
Degree: Master of A r t s
Ti t l e of Thesis: ~hakes pear e' s Love Mythology i n Venus and Adonis,
A Midsummer-Night's Dream and Antony and Cl eopat ra.
Examining Committee:
Chairman : Jar ed R. Cur t i s
J. W, Lever
Seni or Supervi sor
G. Newman
E. Lambert
mySt oc kho l de r
Ext ernal Examiner
Associ at e Pr of essor
Uni versi t y of Br i t i s h Columbia
Vancouver, B . C .
Pat e Approved: March 7, 1975
PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE
I hereby gr a nt t o Simon Fr as er Uni ver s i t y t he r i g h t t o lend
my t h e s i s o r d i s s e r t a t i o n ( t he t i t l e of which i s shown below) t o us er e
of t he Simon Fr as er Uni ver s i t y Li br ar y, and t o make p a r t i a l or s i n g l e
copi es onl y f o r such us er s o r i n response t o a r eques t from t he l i b r a r y
of any ot her u n i v e r s i t y , or ot her educat i onal i n s t i t u t i o n , on i t s own
behal f or f o r one of i t s us er s . I f u r t h e r agr ee t h a t permi ssi on f o r
mul t i pl e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c hol a r l y purposes may be gr ant ed
by me or t he Dean of Graduate St udi es . It is underst ood t h a t copying
or publ i cat i on of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gai n s h a l l not be al l owed
wi t hout my wr i t t e n permi ssi on.
Ti t l e of ~ h e s i s / ~ i s s e r t a t i o n :
~ha ke s pe a r e ' s Love Mythology i n Venus and Adonis, A Midsummer-
Ni ght ' s Dr e a m and Antony and Cl eopat r a.
-
Author :
-
( s i gnat ur e)
Anne Hungerford
(name )
Ifarch 7, 1975
( dat e)
ABSTRACT
In all three works which I will consider, Venus and
Adonis, A Midsummer-~ight's Dream and Antony and Cleopatra,
Shakespeare's theme of love is informed, in varying
degrees, by the figures of classical mythology. The gods
and goddesses of pagan myth underwent many transformations
from their original antique forms to their revival in
Renaissance literature and art. A major portion of this
study is concerned with establishing,Shakespeare's
mythological figures in a Renaissance context.
I have attempted to trace the development of
Shakespeare's use of love mythology from its earliest
forms in Venus and Adonis and A Midsummer-Night's Dream
to its fullest expression iri Antony and Cleopatra.
Venus and Adonis shows us, within a mythological framework,
the fall of the world. A Midsummer-Night's Dream reverses
the process, rebuilding through divine influence a mythic
paradise. Antony and Cleopatra transcends the relative
simplicity of the two earlier works. The negative aspects
of love in Venus and Adonis and the positive aspects
portrayed in A Midsummer-Night's Dream are placed in the
cont ext of a world no l onger s he l t e r e d by gods and
goddesses. I n Antony and Cl eopat ra t he world ne i t he r
f a l l s nor rises; it s t a ys locked i n a stasis under t h e
dominance of For t une' s wheel. The di vi ne cont ent of
mythology i s pr es ent onl y on t he edges of t h i s world,
where it s t r uggl es , unsuccessf ul l y, t o achi eve
r ecogni t i on.
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
page
INTRODUCTION
VENUS AND ADONIS
A MIDSUMP4ER-NIGHT'S DREAM
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
P L A T E S
'
Mi chel angel o ( a f t e r ) , "Ganymede , " Chalk
Drawing, Fr . 18, f o r Tomas m- Caval i er i ,
1532, from Erwin Panofsky, St udi e s i n
(London: Oxford Univ. Pr . , 1939,
LXXXIV, 158.
Gust ave DO^, I l l u s t r a t i o n f a r The Di vi ne
Comedy, Par adi s e c a nt o 9, from The Di vi ne
Comedv of Dante Al i a hi e r i . t r a ns . Lawrence - -
rant* whi t e ( New YO;^: pai t heon Bks . , 1948) . 62
Paol o Veronese, "Mars and Venus," Met r opol i t an
Museum of A r t , New York, from Edgar Wind,
Pagan Myst er i es i n t he Renai ssance (London:
Faber & Faber , 1958) , i l l u s . 76. 120
Fr ancesco Cossa, "The Triumph of Venus, "
' ( d e t a i l ) , Pal azzo Schi f anoi a, Fe r r a r a , from
Edgar wind, Pagan Myst er i es i n t h e Renai ssance
( 1958) , i l l u s . 77. 121
Bo t t i c e l l i , "Mars and Venus ," Nat i onal Gal l er y,
London, from Edgar Wind, Pagan Mys t er i es i n t h e
Rena' issance (1958) , i l l u s . 74. 122
INTRODUCTION.
The Renaissance, a s i t s name i mpl i es , w a s a t i m e of
ext r aor di nar y reawakening, Af t er c e nt ur i e s of semi-neglect
t he achievements of t he Greek and Roman c i v i l i z a t i o n s w e r e
r es t or ed t o a pos i t i on of c e n t r a l importance and t he i nf l ux
of redi scovered c l a s s i c a l t hought s t i mul at ed t he g r e a t
a r t i s t i c fl oweri ng f o r which t h i s per i od i s s o renowned.
1
Cl a s s i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , i n pa r t i c ul a r , capt ured and i ns pi r e d
t he i magi nat i on of t he Renaissance world and s i nc e much of
it wa s found expressed through mythology, Renaissance a r t i s t s
cel ebr at ed a renewed i n t e r e s t i n t he c l a s s i c a l por t r a ya l of
t he pagan gods and goddesses. Moreover, t he new humanism of
t h e per i od provided a f r e s h i nt e r pr e t a t i on of myt hol ogi cal
f i gur e s , Not onl y w e r e c l a s s i c a l myths f r eed from t he
Chr i s t i ani zi ng i nf l uence which had dominated them duri ng t he
Middle Ages, f o r i ns t ance, Gelding's depar t ur e from t he
moral i zed t r a d i t i o n i n h i s El i zabet han t r a n s l a t i o n of Ovid' s
Metamorphoses, but t hey we r e f ur t he r informed by a renewed
i n t e r e s t i n phi l osophy, pr i mar i l y t he t r a d i t i o n of ~e opl a t oni s m.
2
Paul 0. Kristeller, Renaissance Thought (New York : Harper,
1961), p. 7.
Jean Seznec, The Sur vi val of t he Pagan Gods. The Mythological
Tr adi t i on and Its Pl ace i n Renaissance Humanism ( 1940) , t r ans .
Bar bar a F. Sessi ons, Bol l i ngen Se r i e s XXXVI I I ( pr i ncet on, N. J. ,
Pr i ncet on Univ. Pr. , 1953, 1972) , pp. 96f f .
Thus f i g u r e s t aken from classical mythology, i nf us e d wi t h
phi l os ophi c a l meaning and r e i n t e r p r e t e d i n t h e l i g h t of t h e
new humanism, appear i n t h e works of Bo t t i c e l l i and Michel-
ange l o.
The Renai ssance f a s c i na t i on wi t h pagan mythology also
appear s i n Shakespear e' s work. H i s us e of classical i con-
ography i n s e v e r a l of t h e s onnet s and many of t h e pl a ys and
h i s f a mi l i a r i t y wi t h a t l east t he b a s i c pr emi ses of t h e
sur r oundi ng phi l os ophi cal t r a d i t i o n , show t h a t he p a r t i -
c i pa t e d i n t h e ge ne r a l movement t oward myt hol ogi cal expr es s i on
i n t h e ar t s. Ri char d Cody and David P. Young have at t empt ed
i n t h e i r i ndi vi dua l works t o pl a c e Shakespear e i n t h i s tra-
d i t i ~ n , ~ whi l e Erwin Panofsky, J ean Seznec and Edgar Wind
make r e f e r e nc e t o Shakespeare when di s c us s i ng t h e Renai ssance
r e v i v a l i n t h e p l a s t i c a r t s , 5 b u t on t he whole t h i s i s an
area of Shakespeare cri t i ci sm which i s onl y now begi nni ng t o
r e c e i ve s c hol a r l y a t t e nt i on. I have t he r e f or e chosen t o
examine c e r t a i n a s pe c t s of Shakespear e' s myth s t r u c t u r e . Si nce
30n Shakespeare and Neopl at oni sm, see John Vyvyan, Shakespeare
and Pl a t oni c Beauty (London: Chat t o & Windus, 1970) ; Walter
C. Curry, Shakespear e' s Phi l os ophi cal Pa t t e r n s ( Loui si ana
S t a t e Univ. Pr . , 1937, 1959) .
4 ~ i c h a r d Cody, The Landscape of t h e Mind (London: Cl arendon Pr. ,
1969) ; David P. Young, Something of Gr eat Const ancy ( Ne w Haven:
Yale Univ. Pr . , 1966) .
'I3dgar Wind, Pagan Myst er i es i n t h e Renai ssance (London: Faber
& Faber , 1958) ; Erwin Panofsky, St udi e s i n I conol ogy (London:
Oxford Univ. Pr . , 1939, 1967) .
Shakespeare' s use of Renaissance mythology i s a t opi c t oo
l a r ge f o r t he conf i nes of t h i s paper and t oo expansi ve f o r
t he l i m i t s of my knowledge, I w i l l concent r at e on t he myth-
ol ogi c a l as pect s of l ove i n t hr e e works which have t h i s theme
i n common: t h e na r r a t i ve poem Venus and Adonis and t he pl ays
A Midsummer-Night's Dream and Antony and Cl eopat ra. I n each
i ns t ance t he Love theme i s expl ored through myt hol ogi cal
backgrounds which demonstrate Shakespeare' s i ndebt edness t o
t he r e vi va l of pagan myst er i es i n t he Renaissance.
I s h a l l open wi t h a st udy of Venus and Adonis because
it i s c l e a r l y t he b e s t example of an Ovidian mythology
i nt e r pr e t e d and t~ some e xt e nt t ransformed by t he new Renai-
ssance humanism. The uni ver s al t r eat ment accorded t o l ove i n
t h i s e a r l y myt hol ogi cal poem poi nt s toward Shakespeare' s
l i f e l ong expl or at i on of t he power of Eros i n t he world, a
theme which i s f ur t he r expl ored i n A Midsummer-Night's Dream
where, ami dst f a i r i e s and l over s , t h e descent of t he winged
god i n t o t h e pl a y' s world and i t s consequent metamorphosis,
i s char t ed. Fi na l l y, i n Antony and Cl eopat ra, which s har es
a pagan s e t t i n g wi t h t he e a r l i e r works and t h e i r concern wi t h
t h e uni ve r s a l i t y of l ove, Shakespeare depar t s from t he recog-
ni zabl e f i gur e s of c l a s s i c a l mythology and i n s t i l l s a l l mytholo-
g i c a l potency i n t o t he dramat i c c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on, through
suggest i ve powers of imagery. Cl eopat ra i s compared t o
Venus and Isis, whi l e Antony c a r r i e s as pect s of Hercul es
and Mars, however t he l i n e between t h e mor t al and t he
immortal i s never c l e a r l y drawn, al l owi ng an undefined
flow t o occur between di vi ne and temporal worlds. Thus
we s h a l l be st udyi ng Shakespeare' s use of mythology t o
por t r ay t he theme of l ove, from i t s s i mpl es t poe t i c or i gi ns
t o i t s most complex dramat i c expressi on.
The weal t h of ma t e r i a l which t he humanist movement
r evi ved dur i ng t h e Renaissance gave l i f e t o t he ar t i s t i c
i magi nat i on of t he per i od by provi di ng new metaphors f o r
t he poe t i c expr essi on of t he world. Whereas t he Middle Ages
had accept ed a t ypol ogi cal readi ng of myth, as a means of
r ei nf or ci ng cl os ed systems of dogmatic b e l i e f , t he Renaissance
found i n t he s t o r e of c l a s s i c a l mythology an oppor t uni t y t o
unfol d non-Chri st i an myst er i es of d i v i n i t y i n t he world.
Shakespeare, i n pa r t i c ul a r , took advantage of t he image power
i n t he new mythology.
A source of power f o r bot h poet r y and mythology is t he
accuracy wi t h which t hey di s c l os e t r u t h i n t he world and t he
medium t hrough which t hey make t h i s di s cl os ur e i s image, f o r
image conveys myst er i es which el ude common language:
The word-bound concept i s always i nadequat e t o t he
t o r r e n t of l i f e . Hence it i s onl y t h e image-making
o r f i gur a t i ve word t h a t can i nve s t t hi ngs wi t h
expressi on. . . . But whereas t he language of or di nar y
l i f e - i n i t s e l f a working and workmanlike i nst rument
- i s cont i nual l y wearing down t he image-content of
words and acqui r i ng a s u p e r f i c i a l exi s t ence of i t s own
( l ogi c a l onl y i n appearance), poet r y cont i nues t o
c u l t i v a t e t he f i gur a t i ve , i.e. image-bearing, q u a l i t i e s
of language, wi t h de l i be r a t e i nt e nt . What poe t i c
language does wi t h images i s t o pl ay wi t h them s o t h a t
every image cont ai ns t h e answer t o an enigma. 6
I n t h e i ns pi r e d poet we wi t ness t he a ut he nt i c i t y of t he
i ns i ght s which h i s images unfol d, an a ut he nt i c i t y which
mi r r or s t h a t of mythology, f o r bot h "soar t o hei ght s o f
i n s i g h t beyond t he reach of reason. " 7 The common c e nt r e of
poet r y and myth, a s Cas s i r er de f i ne s it, i s t h a t bot h s pr i ng
from "met aphori cal t hi nki ng, '18 Si nce t hey have t h i s mode df
per cept i on i n common, it i s na t ur a l t h a t t he poet not onl y
uses metaphor a s a means of expr essi on, but a l s o l ooks t o
myth f o r t h e source of h i s images. When t he poet t akes h i s
metaphors from mythology he br i ngs t h e world, i n i t s l a r g e s t
sense - t h e movement of heaven, e a r t h and h e l l - i n t o h i s
poem. Indeed, i f t he poet wishes t o expand h i s work beyond
6 ~ . Huizinga, Homo Ludens (Boston: Beacon Pr. , 1950) , pp.
133-4.
I
i hi d. , p. 129.
' ~ r n s t Cas s i r er , Language and Myth (New York: Harper & Bros. ,
1946) , p. 84: "And t h i s common c e nt r e r e a l l y seems t o be
demonstrable; f or , no mat t er how wi del y t h e cont ent s of myth
and lagguage may d i f f e r , y e t t he same form of mental concept i on
i s oper at i ve i n both. I t i s t he form which one may denot e as
met aphori cal t hi nki ng. "
t h e l i m i t s of t he per sonal , he must draw h i s images from
mythology, s i nc e t hey a r e bot h accur at e and t h e onl y way he
can show an expanded world vi s i on. It i s t hrough myth t h a t
our cosmology i s reveal ed t o us and t he r e vi va l of c l a s s i c a l
mythology gave Shakespeare t he oppor t uni t y t o expr es s a
Renaissance cosmology composed of heavenly spher es, t hrough
t h e f i gur e s of gods and goddesses.
W e know t h a t Shakespeare drew h i s knowledge of c l a s s i c a l
myth pr i mar i l y from h i s readi ng of Ovid, Vi r g i l and Pl ut ar ch.
9
But though he became f a mi l i a r wi t h myt hol ogi cal f i gur e s
t hrough k l a s s i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , t he cont ext i n which t hey w e r e
viewed was e n t i r e l y Renaissance. The humani st ' s devot i on t o
t he work of anci ent aut hor s i ncl uded not onl y t h e l i t e r a t u r e
but a l s o t he phi l osophy, and t he r edi scover y of a l a s s i c a l
image went hand i n hand wi t h t he r e vi va l , i n I t a l y , of
Platonism. For t he quat t r ocent o pa i nt e r s , mythology w a s
wedded t o t h i s revi ved philosophy. Di f f er i ng from bot h t he
anci ent s and t he mediaeval Chr i s t i ans , t hey pr esent ed t he gods
(Venus, Diana, Mars, e t c . ) as t hey appeared wi t hi n t he
i n t r i c a t e cosmology of Neoplatonism. Thus when t he goddess of
Love was por t r ayed on a Renaissance canvas, s he r e f l e c t e d
' ~e z ne c makes not e of ot her pos s i bl e sources: "It has been
conj ect ur ed t h a t he made use of Text or ' s Of f i ci na. With more
pr eci s i on, h i s i ndebt edness t o t h e embl emat i st s ~ l c i a t i ,
Symeoni, Sambec and Whitney has been pos t ul at ed, not onl y
' f o r devi ces ' and a l l e gor i e s , but a l s o f o r a l a r ge number of
myt hol ogi cal a l l us i ons s c a t t e r e d t hroughout h i s work. Fi nal l y,
t he r e a r e c e r t a i n i ndi cat i ons poi nt i ng t o Shakespeare' s
having known t he Imagini of Car t ar i . " Jean Seznec, op. c i t . ,
p.. 315.
Aphrodite Urania o r Aphrodite Pandemos, o r i g i n a l l y
mentioned by Pl a t o i n t he Symposium.
10
Whether Shakespeare had de t a i l e d knowledge of Neo-
pl at oni sm, i n p a r t i c u l a r t he wr i t i ngs .of t he Fl or ent i ne
Academy, is an open quest i on. What i s known i s t h a t
Pl at oni sm wa s c ul t i va t e d by El i zabet han i n t e l l e c t u a l
c i r c l e s , not abl y by S i r Ph i l i p Sidney, and t h a t i t s
popul ar i t y made i t s major t e n e t s common knowledge: "Every-
body, i ncl udi ng Shakespeare, knew about ' t he pr ophet i c
s oul of t h e wide world, dreaming on t hi ngs t o come' ; and
everybody wa s acquai nt ed wi t h t he hi er ar chy of Neopl at oni c
. daemons - as di s t i ngui s hed from t he f a l l e n angel s of
I
Chr i s t i a n t heol ogy. "I1 Given t h a t t h e ba s i c cosmology of
Pl at oni sm wa s wi del y known, it i s not a l a r ge assumption t o
say t h a t i t s Love t he or i e s enjoyed a s i mi l a r popul ar i t y,
f o r it w a s Love (Eros) t h a t a c t i va t e d t he Neopl at oni c
hi er ar chy: "Each of t hes e (Neopl at oni c) worlds i s forml ess,
a t f i r s t ; but it gr adual l y t akes shape through t he a c t i v i t y
of di vi ne Love. . . . Love i s t he r e f or e t he ul t i mat e bond
of t he cosmos - nodus perpet uus e t copula mundi. * l2
A s f o r
Shakespeare' s d i r e c t sour ces, Spenser ' s A Hymne i n Honour of
''AS Seznec, Wind and Panof sky poi nt out .
l l wal t er C. Curry, op. c i t . , p. 157.
1 2 ~ o h n Vyvyan, op. c i t . , p. 36.
I
14prances Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic ~radition,
(Chicago, 111,:. Univ, of Chicago Pr., 1964), pp. 356-7.
Beautie, has been mentioned, l3 and it has been suggested
that the Platonic tinge of Love'% Labour% Lost may owe a
debt to Giordano Bruno's visit to England in 1582.
14
Since this paper is not primarily concerned with the
influence of Neoplatonism on Shakespeare, but rather looks
at the Neoplatonic tradition as one means by which mythology
entered Shakespeare's world, and since the topic under
consideration will be Shakespeare's Love concepts, I will
limit my discussion of Neoplatonic mythology to the metaphors
which express the 'Love1 theories. It should also be kept
in mind, particularly when it seems that the balance of
discussion weighs heavily on the side of philosophy at the
expense of myth, that Shakespeare's concerns were artistic
rather than philosophical. Looked at from this point of
view, Neoplatonism provided him with a world of images
contained in a tradition of ideas,
Love, in the Neoplatonic tradition, was defined as the
desire for beauty, The ultimate beauty to be sought and
longed for was the original Platonic - One, metamorphosed by
Ficino and other Christian Neoplatonists into God:
Thi s di vi ne qua l i t y of beaut y stirs d e s i r e f o r i t s e l f
i n a l l t hi ngs ; and t h a t i s love. The world t h a t w a s
o r i g i n a l l y drawn out of God i s t hus drawn back t o God;
t he r e i s a cont i nual a t t r a c t i o n between them - from
God t o t h e world and from t he world t o God - moving
a s it were i n a c i r c l e . Thi s c i r c l e may be s a i d t o
di s pl ay t hr e e q u a l i t i e s : begi nni ng i n God, it i s beaut y;
passi ng i n t o t he world, it i s l ove; and r et ur ni ng t o
uni t e t h e c r e a t i on wi t h t he Cr eat or , it i s pure del i ght .
. . . God i s t he beaut y t h a t a l l t hi ngs de s i r e ; by t h i s
t h e i r l ongi ng was ki ndl ed, and i n t he possessi on of it
t hey w i l l be cont ent . Here t h e ardour of a l l l over s
comes t o rest, not because it i s s pent , b u t because it
i s f u l f i l l e d . 15
Thi s di vi ne c i r c l e was f ur t he r understood t o have t hr e e
act i ons : emanatio, t h e out pouri ng from God; r a p t i o , t he
r apt ur e which accompanies t h e r ecogni t i on of di vi ne presence
i n t he world and qonsequently produces conversi on; and
remeat i o, t he f i n a l ascendence and r e t ur n t o Godhead.
16
Moreover, t he image used t o expr ess t h i s c i r c u l a r movement
w a s of Venus and her son Eros:
I f we f u r t h e r consi der t h a t a l l communion between
mor t al s and gods was es t abl i s hed, accordi ng t o Pl at o,
t hrough t he medi at i on of Love, it becomes c l e a r why
i n Fi c i no' s and Pi co' s system t he e n t i r e Greek
pantheon began t o revol ve around Venus and Amor. . . .
Although Venus remained one de i t y among ot he r s , and
a s such t h e bestower onl y of p a r t i c u l a r g i f t s , she
def i ned, a s it we r e , t he uni ver s al system of exchange
by which di vi ne g i f t s are gr aci ous l y c i r c ul a t e d. 17
" ~ i c i n o , Commentary on t he Symposium, a s quoted i n Vyvyan,
op. c i t . , p. 39.
161John Vyvyan, op. c i t . , p. 40; Edgar Wind, op. ci t . , p. 38.
1 7 ~ d g a r Wjnd, op. c i t . , p. 38.
As has been not ed, t h i s "system of exchange," which
Venus and Amor def i ned, had t hr e e movements: emanatio,
r a p t i o and remeat i o. A more de t a i l e d look a t each of
t hes e s t a ge s may hel p us t o underst and how t hey a r e
r epr esent ed by as pect s of t he Venus/Eros image, what
t hes e gods may have meant t o Shakespeare and, on a l a r ge r
pl ane, what t he or i e s of Love were popul ar t hroughout t he
Renaissance world. Moreover, I have chosen t o look a t
each of t he movements s epar at el y, because whi l e Aphrodite
and Eros pl ay a major role i n a l l t hr e e , t h e i r as pect s
change accordi ng t o t he purpose of t h e movement. For
example, t he Aphrodite who i ns pi r e s remeat i o, o r t he upward
r et ur n, d i f f e r s from t he Aphrodite who i s pr es ent i n t he
emanatio, o r downward flow. A similar di st i nct i m exists between
t he Eros of t he remeat i o and i t s count er par t i n t he r apt i o.
I t i s t hus necessary t o look a t a l l t he f aces of t he goddess
and her son bef or e we can underst and what t hey might have
symbolized f o r Shakespeare.
I. 'REMEAT10 ' t he way 'up:
Love i s a s p i r i t a l l compact of f i r e ,
Not gr os s t o s i nk, but l i g h t and w i l l as pi r e.
(Venus 'and Adonis 149-50)
Ti t . And I do l ove t hee. . . .
-
And I w i l l purge t hy mort al gr ossness s o
That t hou s h a l t l i k e an a i r y s p i r i t go.
(A Midsv ?r-Night' s Dream,
111, i, 47, 151-2)
Cleo.
-
. . . Husband I come; . . .
I a m f i r e , and ai r ; my ot he r el ement s
I gi ve t o bas er l i f e .
(Antony and Cl eopat ra,
V, ii, 286, 288-9)
The hi s t or y of t h e upward movement of Love (remeat i o)
and i t s . i ma ge s (Aphrodite Urania and Eros) begi ns, of course,
wi t h P l a t o l s Symposium. Towards t he begi nni ng of t he di al ogue,
Pausani as di s t i ngui s he s between two as pect s of Venus, her
heavenly s i de , Aphrodite Uran' ia, and he r ear t hky o r s ens ual
s i de , Aphrodite Pandernos. The heavenly Venus, c a l l e d
daught er of Uranus, i ns pi r e s a Love i n which " t he r e i s not hi ng
of wantonness. "18 While Pausani as equat es t h i s wi t h a Love of
' 18pl at o, Symposium, t r a ns . Benjamin Jowet t , i n
of Pl at o, Vol. I1 (London: Sphere Books, 1970
young boys r a t he r t han women, he a l s o s t a t e s t h a t t h i s i s
l ove of t he " i n t e l l e c t " and t he "good": "For t hey l ove not
boys but i n t e l l i g e n t bei ngs whose reason i s begi nni ng t o
be developed. "I9 It i s, however, Socr at es, o r r a t he r
Diotima, who a r t i c u l a t e s how l ove, i n t h i s cas e Eros,
i ns pi r e s one t o cl i mb hi gher t o abs ol ut e beauty:
H e who, ascendi ng from t hes e e a r t hl y t hi ngs under
t he i nf l uence of t r u e l ove, begi ns t o per cei ve t h a t
beaut y, i s not f a r from t h e end. And t he t r u e or der
of goi ng, o r bei ng l e d by anot her , t o t he t hi ngs of
l ove, i s t o begi n from t he beaut i es of e a r t h and
mount unwards f o r t he sake of t h a t ot he r beaut y,
usi ng t hes e a s s t e ps onl y, and from one goi ng on t o
two, and from two t o a l l f a i r bodi l y forms, and from
f a i r bodi l y forms t o f a i r pr a c t i c e s , and from f a i r
pr a c t i c e s t o f a i r s ci ences , u n t i l from f a i r s ci ences
he a r r i v e s a t t he sci ence of which I have spoken,
t he s ci ence which has no ot he r obj e c t t han abs ol ut e
beaut y, and a t l a s t knows t h a t which i s be a ut i f ul by
i t s e l f al one. Thi s, . . . i s t h a t l i f e above a l l
ot he r s which man should l i v e , i n t he cont empl at i on
of beaut y al one. 20
\
The commentators on Pl a t o' s l ove t he or i e s w e r e a l s o
i nf l uenced by t he works of ot her phi l osopher s, not abl y
Pl ot i nus . A b r i e f look a t Pl ot i nus ? wr i t i ng on t he s ubj e c t
af l ove i s t he r e f or e necessary, s i nc e h i s i deas hel ped t o
shape Renaissance Neoplatonism.
. . . . , , . . .
Pl ot i nus ' system cons i s t ed of a cosmology of descending
or der s from t he One, t o t he Uni versal Mind, t he World Soul
and t he lower s e ns i bl e o r ma t e r i a l pl ane of Being. I n t h i s
pi c t ur e Love i s a God and a Ce l e s t i a l S p i r i t , and i n
di s cus s i ng Love a s a God, Plotinus r e f e r s back t o t he passage
i n t he Symposium where we a r e t o l d t h a t Eros i s t he c hi l d of
Aphrodite. Si nce Aphrodite Urania i s he r s e l f t he daught er
of Kronos/Saturn ( i n Pl ot i nus ' system, t h e Uni versal Mind),
it fol l ows t h a t Aphrodite i s t he World Soul , of f s pr i ng of
heavenly Mind. Thi s Soul , accordi ng t o Pl ot i nus , i s
"unmingled a s t he immediate emanation of t h e unmingled,
remaining ever above, a s ne i t he r des i r ous nor capabl e of
descending t o t h i s sphere. ' 1 2 1 But Aphrodite f i x e s he r gaze
upon t he Fat her who conceived her (Kronos) and t h e Soul ' s
ador at i on of t he Uni versal Mind produces a Love, named Eros,
\
t he son of Aphrodite:
Thi s Act of t he Soul has produced an Hypost asi s, a
Real-Being; and t he mother and t h i s Hypost asi s -
her of f s pr i ng, nobl e Love - gaze t oget her upon
Divine Mind. Love, t hus , i s ever i n t e n t upon t h a t
ot her l ovel i nes s , and e x i s t s t o be t he medium between
de s i r e and t he obj e c t of de s i r e . 22
Symposium, when he speaks not of t he heavenly but of t he
LI
Pl ot i nus , The Enneads, t r a ns . Stephen MacKenna (London:
Faber & Faber, 1930), I I I . v, "Love," p. 193.
bas er , e a r t hl y Aphrodite. She, t oo, i s a Soul , but unl i ke
her di vi ne sister she i s ne i t he r pure nor abs ol ut e. She
i s t he Soul of t h i s uni ver se (Anlma Mundi) and as such
he r concerns a r e i n t he lower world: -
Thi s Aphrodi t e, t he secondary Soul , i s of t h i s
Universe - not Soul unmingled al one, not Soul
t he Absolute - gi vi ng b i r t h , t her ef or e, t o t he
Love concerned wi t h t he uni ver s al l i f e ; no, t h i s
i s t he Love pr es i di ng over marri ages; but it,
a l s o, has i t s touch of t he upward de s i r e ; and, i n
t he degree of t h a t s t r i v i n g , it stirs and l eads
upwards t he s oul s of t h e young and every s oul
wi t h which it i s i ncor por at ed i n s o f a r a s t he r e
i s a na t ur a l tendency t o remembrance of t he di vi ne. 23
- C
Si nce t h i s secondary Aphrodite i s touched by mat t er , she
cannot be abs ol ut el y pure and i s t hus c a l l e d a Ce l e s t i a l
S p i r i t , whi l e her heavenly count er par t i s allowed t he name
of God: "It i s our t eachi ng and convi ct i on t h a t t he Gods
are immune t o a l l passi on, whi l e we a t t r i b u t e expexience
and emotion t o t h e Ce l e s t i a l s which, though e t e r n a l Beings
and d i r e c t l y next t o t he Gods, a r e al r eady a s t e p towards
our s el ves and s t and between t he di vi ne and t h e human.
,824
The Eros who accompanies t h e Ce l e s t i a l Aphrodite i s born of
Penia (Povert y) and Poros ( Pl ent y) . The l ove i s c a l l e d son
of Penia because, not cont ai ni ng wi t hi n i t s e l f t he means
of s a t i a t i n g i t s own de s i r e , it must always s t r i v e f o r union
wi t h t he di vi ne: "It cannot be s a t i s f i e d because a t hi ng of
mi xt ure never can be so: t r u e s a t i s f a c t i o n i s onl y f o r
what has i t s pl eni t ude i n i t s own bei ng; where cr avi ng
i s due t o an i nborn def i ci ency, t he r e may be s a t i s f a c t i o n
a t some gi ven moment But it does not l a s t . v25 The echo
Fi ci no was never t i r e d of r epeat i ng, the t r oubl e about
t he pl eas ur es of t he senses i s n o t t h a t t hey are pl eas ur es ,
b u t t h a t t hey do not l ast . I t i s t h e i r t r a n s i t o r y , not
t h e i r enj oyabl e nat ur e which needs t o be amended. "26 But
t h i s Eros i s a l s o born of Poros o r Pl ent y, who i s def i ned
as: " t he l avi s hnes s , t he abundance of beauty." 27
The
concept of pl eni t ude w i l l be d e a l t wi t h i n gr e a t e r d e t a i l
when we look a t t he emanatio o r downward movement of l ove.
Pl ot i nus pl aces more emphasis on t he a s pi r i ng nat ur e of
t h i s Eros t han on Love' s abundant pl eni t ude: ' ' This Love i s,
\
a t once, i n some degree a t hi ng of Mat t er and a t t he same
t i m e a Ce l e s t i a l sprung of t he Soul ' s uns a t i s f i e d l ongi ng
f o r The Good.
1128
The major t e ne t s of Pl ot i ni a n Love a r e t hese: (1) t h a t
t he Eros which Aphrodite Urania i n s p i r e s l eads one t o a
per cept i on of abs ol ut e beaut y, and ( 2) t h a t when Love (Eros)
i s t i e d t o mat t er through t h e e a r t h l y Aphrodite it c r e a t e s an
2 7 ~ l o t i n u s , op. c i t . , p. 200.
**pl ot i nus, op. c i t . , p. 201.
i n s a t i a b l e longing. These two forms of Eros, however,
have one i mport ant s i mi l a r i t y. They a r e bot h cont i nual l y
a s pi r i ng i n an upward di r e c t i on.
Pl a t o' s i deas on Love reappeared wi t h renewed
popul ar i t y i n Renaissance Tt al y, where t hey r ecei ved
. . . . . . . . . .
a t t e n t i o n i n t h e many Tr'at.Ea'ti' dV' amore wr i t t e n dur i ng
t h i s peri od. These "Love t r e a t i s e s v w e r e i ns pi r e d by
Mar s i l i o Fi ci no' s Commentary on Pl a t o ' s Symposium.
29
Notable among t hes e w e r e t he Di al oghi dvamore of Leone
Ebreo and Ca s t i gl i one ' s Book of t he Cour t i er , t he l a t t e r
e a s i l y acc&s s i bl e t o )Shakespeare i n Hobyts t r a ns l a t i on.
A l l t hr e e works comment on t he nat ur e of a s pi r i ng Love, t he
remeat i o, t he Love t h a t r e t ur ns t o God.
It was Fi ci no' s l i f e l ong de s i r e t o r econci l e Pl a t oni c
doct r i ne wi t h Chr i s t i a ni t y. I n an e f f o r t t o do t h i s , he
t ransformed t he Pl ot i ni a n cosmology of t he One, t he Uni versal
Mind, t h e World Soul and t he s e ns i bl e o r ma t e r i a l worl d, i n t o
God, t h e Angel i c Mind, t he World Soul and t he Body of t he
World. 30
Eros i s seen a s t he f or ce t h a t bi nds a l l t hes e
l e ve l s t oget her and it i s through Eros t h a t one makes t he
as cent i mpl i ed i n t he phrase remeatio:
2980r a de t a i l e d di s cus s i on of t h e ~ r a t t a t i d' anor e i n t he
Renaissance, see "Love ~ r e a t i s e s , " i n John C. Nelson,
The Renaissance Theory of Love (New York: ~ol umbi a ~ n i v .
Pr. , 1955)., pp. 67ff.
30~yvyan, op. ci t . , p. 3 6 .
A s we not i ced, t he gr ace o r a t t r a c t i v e power of t he
i d e a l world, a s it f i r s t appears i n t he Angelic Mind,
i s beaut y. Thi s beaut y, of course, or i gi na t e s i n God;
and it i s by God's abs ol ut e beauty t h a t l ove i s s a i d
t o be s t i r r e d i n t he very beginning. Once agai n, t h e
pr ocess i s r epeat ed as we descend t he uni ver s al s c a l e ;
s o t h a t i n every world l ove i s awakened by t h e beaut y
of t h e world above. Considered i n t h i s way, l ove
Becomes an as cent , a l ongi ng f o r t he i d e a l or der and
t he pure S p i r i t from which It came. 31
Fi ci no, fol l owi ng Pl a t o and Pl ot i nus , a l s o comments an t h e
dual -nat ured Venus, bequeathing her t o Renaissance
mythology :
The f i r s t Venus, who i s t he Angelic Mind, i s
born of Heaven: she i s s a i d t o have no mother,
because mother s i g n i f i e s mat t er t o t h e n a t u r a l
phi l osopher s, and t he Angelic Mind has no t r a c e
of ma t e r i a l i t y. The second Venus, who i s i n t h e
Soul of t he World, i s c a l l e d t he daughtex of
J u p i t e r and Dione. What i s meant by J u p i t e r i s
t he power i n t he World Soul t h a t moves t h& v i s i b l e
heavens, and gener at es a l l lower forms; and because
t h i s i s i nf used i n t o matter, and appears t o uni t e
wi t h it, t h e second Venus i s s a i d t o have a mother.
To sum it up, t he r e a r e two as pect s of Venus: t he
i nt e l l i ge nc e i n t he Angelic Mind, and t he genera-
t i n g power of t he World Soul. They a r e bot h
accompanied by love. By i nnat e l ove, t he f i r s t i s
i mpel l ed t o contemolate t he beaut y of God, and t he
second, t o r e- cr eat e t h i s beaut y i n mat er i al forms;
t he one, having embraced t he di vi ne spl endour, sheds
it on t h e ot he r , who i mpart s s c i n t i l l a t i o n s of i t s
gl or y t o t he Body of t h e World. 32
31~yvyan, op,. c i t . ,
3 2 ~ i c i n o , Commentary on Pl a t o v s Symposium, quoted i n Vyvyan,
op. dt., pp. 47-8.
The Pl at oni c l adder of as cent i s followed s o c l os e l y
i n t he Di al oghi dtamore of Leone Ebreo t h a t it would be
redundant t o pr es ent t he t e x t her e. 33 On t he ot he r hand,
s i nc e Shakespeare was f a mi l i a r wi t h Ca s t i gl i one l s Book of
t h e Cour t i er , it may be worth our whi l e t o examine,
b r i e f l y , h i s i de a s on t he remeat i o as pect of l ove, bef or e
cont i nui ng on t o a di s cus s i on of t he, ema'natio o r downward
motion of l ove.
While Cas t i gl i one does not name t he Soul ' tAphrodite,' '
o r he r Love, born when t he Soul per cei ves Beauty, "Eras,"
h i s debt t o Pl a t o and Fi ci no is obvious. The Cour t i er ,
accordi ng t o Pi e t r o Bembo, begi ns by l ovi ng t he beaut y
which i s "seen i n t he human body and e s pe c i a l l y t he f ace,
s34
Thi s s ens ual l ove i s descr i bed a s t h e l owest rung on t he
l adder and f or gi veabl e i n youth; but it i s u t t e r l y condemned
i n mat ur i t y and i s t o be l e f t behind a s soon a s pos s i bl e.
The l over t hen pr ogr esses t o a s t age where he uses t he
senses of s i g h t and hear i ng t o p e r c e i ~ e t he beaut y of h i s
beloved. Nor i s he decei ved i n t hi nki ng t h a t t he beaut y i s
r e a l , but r a t h e r he sees i n t h e beaut y of t he body a
r e f l e c t i o n of di vi ni t y. Thi s t ype of l ove i n c i t e s bot h l over
and beloved t o vi r t uous behavi our, s o t h a t "The de s i r e s of
elson, son, op. ci t . , p. 93.
3 4 ~ a s t i g l i o n e , The Book of t he Cour t i er , t r a ns . George Bul l ,
( ~ e n g u i d Books, 1967), p. 325.
bot h w i l l be pe r f e c t l y happy." 35 A s he proceeds up t h e
l adder , t he Cour t i er w i l l abandon even t h i s form of
r a t i o n a l l ove, s i nce i t i s s t i l l based upon a per cept i on
of physi cal beaut y, and he chooses i ns t ead t o adore
uni ver s al beaut y, 36 From uni ver s al beaut y he w i l l ascend
t o a cont empl at i on of t he angel i c beaut y, "and s o,
consumed i n t h i s most joyous flame, it ascends t o t h e
nobl es t p a r t which i s t he i n t e l l e c t , v37
Fi na l l y, t h e
pa r t i c ul a r expands t o become t he uni ver s al i n t e l l e c t and
. .
t he s oul , gazi ng upon t h i s , achi eves t h e f i n a l 'remeat'io
wi t h God, which Bembo def i nes a s "t he supreme happi ness
t h e senses cannot comprehend."
38
X I . E WA T I O the' Way down:
The Fi ci ni an de f i ni t i on of emanation i s "over-
fl owi ng, " 390r iti ot he r words t he l ove which fl ows from t he
di vi ne world i n t o t he mat er i al one. When des cr i bi ng t he
. . . . . , . , . .
. 3 9 ~ i n d , op. c i t . , p. 37.
i n t e r r e l a t i o n of h i s t r i l e v e l l e d cosmology, Fi ci no uses
t he metaphor of a mi rror:
And s o it i s t h a t t he same di vi ne countenance s hi nes ,
a s it we r e , from t hr ee mi r r or s - t h e Angel i c Mind, t he
Soul of t h e World, and t he Body of t h e World. I n t he
f i r s t , bei ng near es t t o God, it i s b r i l l i a n t ; i n t h e
second it is not s o c l e a r ; and i n t he t h i r d , which i s
f a r removed, it i s obscure. 40
However, as Vyvyan poi nt s out , " t he metaphor of t he mi r r or
i s not pr essed, f o r something more pur posef ul t han
r e f l e c t i o n i s assumed t o be t aki ng pl ace. Cr eat i on - o r
emanation - . . . . w41 I f we not e t h a t t h e s hi ni ng
countenance of God i s obscured by t he t i m e it f i l t e r s
t hrough t o t h e Body of t he World, it becomes c l e a r why t h e
a s pi r i ng motion of l ove pl ays s o i mport ant a p a r t i n t he
Neopl at oni c scheme. The s p i r i t and s oul of man, correspondi ng
\
t o t he Absolute Soul and S p i r i t of t he Pl at oni c hi er ar chy,
cannot r ecei ve t h e bounty of God's emanation i n a pur er
s t a t e t han it i s mani fest once it has ent er ed i n t o t he
world of matter. For many Neopl at oni st s, t h e mat er i al form
of God wa s s o f a r away from t he source as t o be t o t a l l y
negat i ve :
' O~i ci no, quoted by Vyvyan, op. c i t . , p. 41.
' lvyvyan, op. c i t . , p. 41.
Zn sum, t hen, t he I nt e l l e c t ua l - Pr i nc i pl e gi ves f o r t h
i t s e l f t o t h e Soul of t he A l l which fl ows immediately
upon it; t h i s agai n gi ves f o r t h from i t s e l f t o i t s
next , i l l umi nat ed and i mpri nt ed by it; and t h a t
secondary Soul (Aphrodite Pandemos) a t once begi ns t o
c r e a t e , a s under or der , unhindered i n some of i t s
c r e a t i ons , s t r i v i n g i n ot he r s agai ns t t h e repugnance
of Mat t er.
I t has a c r e a t i ve power, deri ved; it i s s t or e d wi t h
Reason-Principles not t he very or i gi na l s : t he r e f or e
it c r e a t e s , but not i n f u l l accordance wi t h t h e
Pr i nc i pl e s from which it has been endowed: something
e n t e r s from i t s e l f ; and, pl a i nl y, t h i s i s i n f e r i o r ,
The i s s ue t hen i s something l i vi ng, yes; but i mper f ect ,
hi nder i ng i n i t s own l i f e , something very poor and
r e l uc t a nt and crude, formed i n a Mat t er t h a t i s t he
f a l l e n sediment of t he Higher Order, b i t t e r and
embi t t er i ng. Thi s i s t he Soul ' s cont r i but i on t o t h e
A l l . 42
The c r e a t i on of something "very poor and r e l uc t a nt and
crude" i s t he r o l e assi gned by Pl ot i nus t o t h e e a r t hl y
Aphrodite. Fi ci no hol ds a mi l der view, Though h i s
second Aphrodite i s st i l l t he guardi an of Mat t er, she i s
allowed her s har e of t he l ove which fl ows from God:
Our mind corresponds t o t he f i r s t Venus; and because
of t h e di vi ne provenance of beaut y, t h e mind i s moved
t o a r e ve r e nt i a l l ove when t he beaut y of t he human body
i s pr esent ed t o t h e eyes; whi l e t h e power of gener-
a t i o n i n us, which i s t he second Venus, i s stimula*d
t o c r e a t e a s i mi l a r form. Love a c t s i n bot h - i n
t h e one, a s a de s i r e t o cont empl at e, and i n t he ot he r
t o propagat e t he beaut i f ul . I n r e a l i t y , each l ove
i s t h a t of t he di vi ne image, and each i s pure. 43
4 2 ~ l o t i n u s , op. ci t . , 1I.i;. p. 104.
4 3 ~ i c i n o , quoted by Vyvyan, op. c i t . , p. 48.
1
Though he cont i nues t o say t h a t t he second Venus must
never overpower t h e importance of t he f i r s t , 4 4 Fi ci no
s t ands out i n bestowing such l avi s h pr a i s e on t h e goddess
of sensual l ove. The maj or i t y of t he Renaissance Tr a t t a t i
dvamore admit t h a t gener at i on i s necessary, b u t t hey
has t en t o di s qua l i f y t h e sexual a c t a s an expr essi on of
l ove or , a s does Cas t i gl i one, t hey des cr i be it as a
des per at e condi t i on of youth, t o be passed through a s
qui ckl y as pos s i bl e.
A l l t hes e w r i t e r s are, however, i n t e n t ori des cr i bi ng
t he j oys t o be found i n t he a c t of t he remeat i o and one i s
const ant zy advi sed t o r a i s e onesel f t o hei ght s which
i nt e r c e pt t h e di vi ne emanatio bef or e it e nt e r s t he Rchai ns"
of mat t er . The e a r t hl y Aphrodite i s always overshadowed
by her heavenly sister and i s seldom di scussed i n her own
r i ght . God's l i g h t becomes t he v i r t u e s t h a t e n t e r t he
world of t hi ngs , passi ng through t he World Soul a s seeds
of v i r t u e s t h a t a r e t he r a t i dne s semi nal es, which Fi ci no
underst ands a s "unconscious c r e a t i ve f or c e s i n nat ure. "
45
I t i s t hus t he Aphrodite of t he e a r t h ( t he Anima Mundi)
who i s r es pons i bl e f o r pl ant i ng t he seeds of God's di vi ne
4 5 ~ a l t e r C. curry., op. ci t . , p. 40.
pr i nc i pl e s i n t o Mat t er and, more i mport ant , it i s she
who i ns pi r e s l ove which i n human bei ngs r e s u l t s i n t h e i r
propagat i on:
While t he c e l e s t i a l Venus i s a pure i n t e l l i g e n t i a ,
t he ot her Venus i s a v l s generandi which, l i k e
Lucr et i us t Venus Genet ri x, gi ves l i f e and shape t o
t he t hi ngs i n nat ur e and t hereby makes t he
i n t e l l i g i b l e beauty acces s i bl e t o our per cept i on
and i magi nat i on.
Ei t her Venus i s accompanied by a congeni al Eros o r
Amor who i s r i g h t l y consi dered t o be he r son because
each form of beauty beget s a correspondi ng form of
love. The c e l e s t i a l l ove or amor di vi nus possesses
i t s e l f of t he hi ghes t f a c ul t y i n man, i.e. t h e Mind
o r i n t e l l e c t , and i mpel s it t o cont empl at e t h e
i n t e l l i g i b l e spl endour of t he di vi ne beaut y. The
son of t he ot he r Venus, t he dmor vul ga r i s , t akes
hol d of t he i nt ermedi ary f a c u l t i e s i n man, i.e.,
i magi nat i on and sensual per cept i on, and i mpel s him
t o pr ocr eat e a l i kenes s of di vi ne beaut y i n t he
phys i cal world. 46
The ambivalence wi t h which t h i s na t ur a l Venus i s
t r e a t e d, on t he one hand wi t h out r i ght condemnation, on
t he ot her wi t h enl i ght ened t ol er ance, r e f l e c t s a ba s i c
confusi on i n t he Renaissance Weltanschauung. Thi s
confusi on i s c a r r i e d over i n t o Renaissance images of her .
While Titian' s "Venus of Urhino" appeared s o joyously
sensual a s t o suggest t h a t "an undi sgui sed hedonism had a t
l a s t di s pe l l e d t he Pl at oni c metaphors, "47 t he goddess could
a l s o appear, a s she does i n an engraving aft er Baccio Bandin-
, 46~a nof s ky, op. ci t . , Chap. V, "The ~ e o p l a t o n i c Movement
i n Fl orence and North I t a l y ( ~ a n d i n e l l i and Ti t i a n ) , "
pp. 142-3.
k
4 7 ~ i n d , op. c i t . , p. 1 4 1 .
e l l i t s, a s "troublesome human Lust. l q4* The ques t i on of
whether t he goddess of sensual l ove was t o be cel ebr at ed
o r r e vi l e d was debat ed throughout t he Renaissance. The
f or ce which brought such a debat e i n t o bei ng l a y bur i ed
wi t hi n a major cont r adi ct i on i n t he Renaissance world
view.
Bas i cal l y t h e God who s at on hi gh and t o whom one
cont i nual l y as pi r ed wa s i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t w i t h t he God
whose downward movement ended i n t he gener at i on of t he
world: "The One was an apot heosi s of uni t y, s e l f -
s uf f i ci ency, -'and qui et ude, t he ot her of di ve r s i t y, s e l f -
t ranscendence, ant$ f ecundi t y, . , . The one God was t he
goal of t he 'way up, ' of t h a t ascending pr ocess by
which t he f i n i t e s oul , t ur ni ng from a l l cr eat ed t hi ngs ,
took i t s way back t o t he inmutable Per f ect i on i n which
al one it coul d f i nd rest. The ot her God was t h e source
and t he i nformi ng energy of t h a t descending pr ocess by
which bel ng flows t hraugh a11 t he l e ve l s of p o s s i b f l i t y
down t o t he very lowest. "49 The Renaissance at t empt ed
time and agai n t o br i ng t hes e two concept i ons of t he Good
o r God t oget her . Sometimes, a s i n Fi ci no, a di vi ne c i r c l e
was made t o hol d bot h not i ons of God; but even i n h i s
4 9 ~ r t h u r 0. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Beinq (Harvard,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Pr . , 1933), pp. 82-3,
system t he God of remeat i o dominates over t he God of
ema.n'atio, a s does t he heavenly Venus over her eat t hl y.
count er par t . Moreover, t he opposi t i on between t hes e
two concept i ons of God was not simply a met aphysi cal
mat t er , but a l s o a p r a c t i c a l problem, wi t h consequences
i n a world view:
There was no way i n which t he f l i g h t from t he Many
t o t he One, t he ques t of a per f ect i on def i ned
wholly i n t e r m s of c ont r a s t wi t h t he cr eat ed wo$ld,
coul d be e f f e c t u a l l y harmonized wi t h t he i mi t a t i on
of a Goodness t h a t de l i ght s i n d i v e r s i t y and mani-
f e s t s i t s e l f i n t he emanation of t h e Many o u t of
t he One. The one program demanded a withdrawal
from a l l "at t achment t o cr eat ur es " and cul mi nat ed
i n t h e e c s t a t i c cont empl at i on of t he i n d i v i s i b l e
Divine Essence; t he ot her , i f it had been formul at ed,
would have summoned men t o pa r t i c i pa t e , i n some
f i n i t e measure, i n t he c r e a t i ve passi on of God, t o
c ol l a bor a t e consci ousl y i n t he pr ocesses by which
t he d i v e r s i t y of t hi ngs , t he Eulness of t he uni ver se,
is achieved. 50
The t heor y of pl eni t ude coul d be r a di c a l i z e d one s t e p
f ur t he r , t o become a compl et el y pos i t i ve phi l osophy, where
" t he a ddi t i on of concr et e a c t u a l i t y t o uni ver s al s , t he
t r a n s l a t i o n of super sensi bl e p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n t o s e ns i bl e
r e a l i t i e s , means an i ncr eas e, n o t a l o s s , of val ue; t h a t ,
indeed, t h e very essence of t he good c ons i s t s i n t he maximal
a c t ua l i z a t i on of va r i e t y; and t h a t t he world of temporal
and s e ns i bl e experi ence i s t hus good, and t he supreme mani-
f e s t a t i o n of t h e di vi ne. " Per haps it wa s wi t h t h i s view
of c r e a t i o n i n mind t h a t Ti t i a n pai nt ed h i s di vi ne l y
s e ns ua l "Venus of Urbino." On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e r e can
be l i t t l e doubt t h a t t h e p a i n t e r who saw h e r as l u s t and
t hos e who concent r at ed on he r heavenl y na t ur e , s ubs cr i bed
t o t h e ' remeat i o t heor y of God.
Whatever t h e conf usi on i n t h e Renai ssance, t h e r e can
be l i t t l e doubt of Shakespear e' s per suasi on. Venus,
h e r s e l f , admonishes Adonis wi t h t h e argument of i nc r e a s e :
Seeds s pr i ng from s eeds and beaut y br eedet h beaut y
Thou w a s t begot . To g e t it i s t hy dut y.
- l i n e s which r e c e i ve added wei ght i f one r ecal l s t o
mind t he "seeds of nat ur e" and t he beaut y of God. Moreover,
numerous of t h e s onnet s a l s o expound t h e t he or y of pl e ni t ude
and i t s v i r t u e s . I n t h e comedi es, t h e promi se of f e r t i l i t y ,
wi t h which many of them end, i s c ont r a s t e d p o s i t i v e l y t o the
s t e r i l i t y which has us ua l l y domi nat ed t h e earlier a c t i on.
There are enough examples i n Shakespear e' s work t o p o s i t ,
wi t h some measure of s a f e t y , t h a t he saw t he Nat ur al Venus
as di vi ne.
5Sibid ., pp. 97-8.
111. RAPT10 t h e annunci at i on:
Obe. That very time I saw - but thou coul ds t not -
-
Fl yi ng between t he col d moon and t he e a r t h
Cupid a l l armed.
(A Midsummer-~ight ' s Dream
11, i t 156-8)
The experi ence of r a p t i o i s pl aced i n t he middle of
Fi c i n o v s di vi ne circle because it is, i n a sense, t h e
f i n a l movement of emanatio and t he f i r s t movement of
remeat i o. I n t h e emanatio phase, God's l ove descends
t hrough t he hi gher l e ve l s u n t i l it reaches t he World
Soul (Aphrodi t e). She, i n t ur n, gi ves b i r t h t o a son
(Eros) who t r ans mi t s t h i s l ove t o t h e world i t s e l f . ~ a p t i o
i s t h e moment when t he god Eros i nvades human consci ousness,
i nduci ng a di vi ne madness. The human experi ence
of d i v i n i t y ( r a pt i o) i nduces a hunger f o r f ur t he r knowledge
of God, which f i nds expr essi on i n t he as cent of ' reme' atio
t hrough l ove :
A l l we must remmbr is that the bounty bestowed by t he
gods upon lower bei ngs was conceived by t he ~ e o -
~ l a t o n i s t s as a ki nd-of overfl owi ng (emanat i o),
which produced a vi vi f yi ng r apt ur e o r conversi on
( c a l l e d by Fi ci no conversi o, r a p t i o or v i v i f i c a t i o )
whereby t he lower bei ngs were drawn back t o heaven
and r ej oi ned t he gods, (remeat i o). 52
5 2 ~ i n d , op. c i t . , p. 37.
I n t he Phaedrus, where t he r a p t i o of Eros i s discusscid
a t l engt h, t he madness of l ove i s c a l l e d " t he
gr e a t e s t of heaven' s bl es s i ngs . w53 The l over , s o bl es s ed,
i s a bl e t o per cei ve, through h i s beloved, a mani f es t at i on
of di vi ne beaut y. Moreover, h i s experi ence of r a p t i o may
l ead him t o expr ess h i s l ove e i t h e r s p i r i t u a l l y o r phys i cal l y,
I f he i s s p i r i t u a l l y i nc l i ne d and s el f - cont r ol l ed, h i s l ove
w i l l gr a nt him happi ness and harmony i n l i f e and reuni on
wi t h t he heavenly f or ce a f t e r deat h. I f , on t he ot he r hand,
he expr esses h i s l ove through phys i cal union, t he rewards
a r e har dl y l essened. I n l i f e he exper i ences " b l i s s n and
a f t e r deat h, though not a s prepared a s t he phi l os ophi cal l y
I
i ncl i ned, he, t oo, i s gi ven admi t t ance i n t o di vi ne presence.
I n c ont r a s t , t h e l over whose per cept i on of beaut y i s not
god-i nspi red i s dr i ven by h i s passi on t o a c t i n a base
manner. H e i s compared t o a " br ut i s h beas t " who pursues
"wantonness" and whose pl easur e i s "a vi ol a t i on of nat ure. "
I ns pi r ed l ove i s t he onl y means by which l over s achi eve
remeat i o and t h i s i s i n accordance wi t h Di ot i mal s t eachi ngs
i n t h e Symposium, where t he a c t of ascensi on i s always
accomplished under t he i nf l uence of l ove ( Er os ) .
5 3 ~ l a t o , Phaeclrus, t r a ns . Jowet t , op. c i t . , p. 262.
Pl ot i nus def i nes t he ' r apt i o of Eros as t he f or ce
which draws one towards pure beauty. Following Pl at o,
he recogni zes t hr e e ki nds of - Amor: t he l ove t h a t i n c i t e s
t he s oul t o merge wi t h di vi ne beauty; t he l ove t h a t seeks
t o uni t e wi t h beaut y through pr ocr eat i on; and t he l ove
which i s c a r na l de s i r e . The l ast of t hes e Pl ot i nus
di smi sses a s "si n. " H e i s i n agreement wi t h Pl a t o t h a t
t h i s a t t r a c t i o n i s not informed by Eros:
Where t h e pr ocr eat i ve de s i r e i s l awl ess o r a ga i ns t
t he purposes of nat ur e, t he f i r s t i ns pi r a t i on has
been na t ur a l , but t hey have di verged from t he way,
t hey have s l i pped and f a l l e n, and t hey gr ovel ; t hey
ne i t he r underst and whi t her Love sought t o l ead them
nor have t hey any i n s t i n c t t o product i on; t hey have
not mast ered t he r i g h t use of t he images of beaut y;
t hey do not know what t he Aut hent i c Beauty is. 54
The l over , however, who seeks t he Beaut i f ul through
t he s exual a c t , behaves i n accordance wi t h t he laws of
nat ur e. Si nce nat ur e can onl y produce by l ooki ng toward
ehe Good, any a c t which i s s ubj e c t t o her laws must have
a l i k e obj ect i ve. Therefore, though t h i s l over i s moved
by phys i cal beaut y, he unconsciously s ees i n t he e a r t hl y
image a r e f l e c t i o n of i t s di vi ne count er par t :
5 4 ~ l o t i n u s , op. ci t . , p. 192.
There a r e s oul s t o whom e a r t hl y beaut y i s a
l eadi ng t o t he memory of t h a t i n t he hi gher realm
and t hes e l ove t he e a r t hl y as an image; t hos e t h a t
have not a t t a i ne d t o t h i s memory do not underst and
what i s happening wi t hi n them, and t ake t he image
f o r t he r e a l i t y . 55
The r a p t i o of t h i s e a r t hl y l ove i s i ns pi r e d by
t he Ce l e s t i a l Eros, born of Penia and Poros. The
~ l o ' t i n i a n d i s t i n c t i o n between Ce l e s t i a l Beings and Gods,
we r e c a l l , i s t h a t t he Ce l e s t i a l ". . . though e t e r n a l
Beings and d i r e c t l y next t o t he Gods, a r e al r eady a
s t e p towards our sel ves and s t and between t h e di vi ne and
t he human.
I156
Consequently, t he r a p t i o which accompanies
a s exual a c t of l ove s a t i s f i e s a t one l e v e l whi l e i t
creates an i ns a t i a bl e l ongi ng on anot her. Having
experi enced t he d i v i n i t y of t he phys i cal world, t he s oul
i s l e f t hungry f o r t he f ur t he r r a p t i o of t he hi gher
realm. Thi s s a t i s f a c t i o n i s r eser ved, however, f o r t hose
whose "Pure l ove seeks t he beauty al one.
"57
Pl ot i nus cal l s t he f or ce which i n s p i r e s pure l ove
a God. Those who come under t he domination of t h i s Eros
do not stop a t mrshipping t he phys i cal beaut y of t he world,
but a l s o vener at e ". . . t he beauty of t he ot he r world
whi l e t hey, st i l l , have no contempt f o r t h i s i n which they
recogni ze, a s it we r e , a l a s t outgrowth, an a t t e nua t i on
of t he hi gher. ,858
Though Pl ot i nus makes some i mport ant d i s t i n c t i o n s
between t he two forms of l ove, he cont i nual l y pr es s es
t he poi nt t h a t bot h "ar e on t he r i g h t pat h. " The r a p t i o
i ns pi r e d by t he Ce l e s t i a l Eros d i f f e r s onl y i n degree,
not i n ki nd, from t h a t which belongs t o t he one God.
Thus pr ocr eat i ve l ove i s allowed a di vi ne aspect .
~ c c o r d i n ~ t o Panofsky, t he Pl at oni c Eros w a s l o s t
t o t he west ern world f o r s e ve r a l cent ur i es . During t he
Cl a s s i c a l and Mediaeval per i ods, t he winged god wa s
I
percei ved e i t h e r as an. i mage of t he gener at i ve f or ce
i n t he world, o r as a f i gur e which a l l e g o r i c a l l y o r
met aphori cal l y expl ai ned t he psychol ogi cal a s pe c t s of
l ove :
Pl a t o l s t heor y of l ove has l e f t no t r a c e i n Greek
and Roman poet ry. Di dact i c poet s l i k e Lucr et i us
o r Oppian g l o r i f i e d l ove as an a l l powerful and
omnipresent f or ce, but conceived of t h i s f or ce as
a na t ur a l , not met aphysi cal pr i nc i pl e , pervadi ng,
y e t not t ranscendi ng t he ma t e r i a l uni verse. I n
l y r i c s , on t he ot he r hand, l ove was depi ct ed a s
t he s t r onge s t of human emotions, b l i s s f u l and
t or t ur i ng, l i f e- gi vi ng and deadl y; but ne i t he r
Theocr i t us nor Ti bul l us , ne i t he r Callimachus nor
Ovid would have t hought of e l e va t i ng t he obj e c t of
t h i s emotion t o a superc celestial realm. ' 59
I
59~a nof s ky, op. ci t . , p. 99.
The t r a d i t i o n t h a t r ecei ved Pl at oni sm when it re-ent ered
t he west ern world, through t he I s l ami c and e a s t e r n
myst i c r e l i gi ons , pol ar i zed t he image of Eros t o the
poi nt t h a t d e l i c a t e di s t i nc t i ons (such as Pl ot i nus '
d i s t i n c t i o n between t he god and t he Ce l e s t i a l Being) bar el y
survi ved. The t r anscendent al as pect of Eros, r ecogni zabl e
t o t he Church, was e a s i l y merged wi t h t he Chr i s t i a n
c a r i t a s . 60 Moreover, t he r a pt i o, which t h e di vi ne Eros
i ns pi r ed, had an obvious p a r a l l e l i n t he conver t i ng
experi ence of St . Paul , 61 But t he God of s exual l ove
wa s as s i mi l at ed by ". . . t he var i ous forms of ' s ens ual '
l ove which came under t he heading of c upi di t a s ( appet i t us
mal i , o r amor mundi, o r amor c a r n a l i s ) .
It62
-
The Renaissance t hus i nhe r i t e d a t r a d i t i o n of Eros
which, i n many cas es , s har pl y di f f e r e nt i a t e d h i s s p i r i t u a l
as pect s from h i s sensual ones. For Fi c i no t h e r a p t i o of
Eros was ". . . t h a t ki nd of passi on t h a t God i n s p i r e s i n
us (which) r a i s e s man above man and changes him i n t o a
~ o d . " ~ ~
On t he ot her hand, t he pas s i onat e r a p t i o of
sexual l ove, or i gi na l l y sung by t he t roubadours, was a
common theme of Renaissance poet ry.
60~a nof s ky, op. c i t . , p. 99.
61~i nd, op. ci t . , p. 56.
62~a nof s ky, op. c i t . , p. 99.
6 3 ~ i c i n o , Sopra l o amore, VII, x i i i , quot ed by John C.
Nelson, op. c i t . , p. 177.
The i con used t o de pi c t Arnor Mundi was Cupid wi t h
a bandage over h i s eyes: "Cupid i s ' nude and bl i nd
because he ' depr i ves men of t h e i r garments, t h e i r
possessi ons, t h e i r good sense and t h e i r wisdom.
' " 6 4
a n t i t h e s i s , Amor Dei, was shown wi t hout t he bl i ndf ol d
because he could s ee t he di vi ne essence wi t h eyes of
l i ght . But des pi t e t he emphasis pl aced on t he dua l i t y
of Eros, at t empt s were made duri ng t h e Renaissance t o
e s t a bl i s h, once agai n, a harmony between t he two nat ur es
of t he winged god. Edgar Wind has argued t h a t t he r a p t i o
which Eros i ns pi r ed neces s ar i l y caused bl i ndnes s because
. <
it was above human comprehension (approaching a Theos
agnost os) and he has i nt e r pr e t e d Bl i nd Cupid as a pos i t i ve
reachi ng symbol of t h i s form of l i mi t ed enl i ght enment .
65
major exponent of t h i s view was Giordano Bruno who,
i n
De g l i e r o i c i f u r o r i , descr i bed ni ne ki nds of di vi ne
bl i ndness. 65a Moreover, t he r e a r e more pot ent examples i n
Bruno' s work of an at t empt ed r e c onc i l i a t i on between t he
super nal and t e r r e ne as pect s of Eros. When speaki ng of a
sonnet i n which Bruno uses t he image of an "Ancient oak,
64~a nof s ky, op. c i t . , p. 107.
6 5 ~ i n d , op. c i t . , Chap. I V, "Orpheus i n Pr a i s e of Bl i nd
Love," pp. 53f f .
6Sa ~i or da no Bruno, The Heroi c Fr enzi es , t r a ns . Paul Eugene
Memmo Jr. (Chapel H i l l : Univ. of North Car ol i na Pr . ,
l 964) , esp. pp. 258ff.
which spreads i t s branches t o t h e a i r , and f i x e s i t s
r oot s i n t he ear t h, " 66 t o symbolize t he union of t he
c e l e s t i a l wi t h t he cor por eal , P.E. Memrno w r i t e s :
I n t he next group of sonnet s t h e l over f i n a l l y
abandons t he i de a l of complete de ni a l of h i s
cor por eal nat ur e i n or der t o achi eve uni t y *i t h
t he Deity. Bruno r e t ur ns t o an i dea which
becomes h i s f i n a l philosophy of t he soul . The
l over s ees t h a t such a deni al c r e a t e s an a r t i f i c i a l
cl eavage between t he cor por eal and khe s p i r i t u a l ,
a dichotomy t h a t does not e x i s t i n t he t r u e nat ur e
of t he s oul , f o r t he cor por eal and t he s p i r i t u a l
el ement s complement each ot he r t o
form t h e whole. 66a
Whether he spoke i n a mocking t one o r not ,
Shakespeare was aware of t he dua l i t y of Eros and of t h e
problems caused by t he f i s s u r e i n t he god' s nat ur e, f o r
he wrote i n A Midsummer-Night's Dream:
He l . - Things base and v i l e , hol di ng no quant i t y,
Love can t ranspose t o form and di gni t y.
Love l ooks not wi t h t he eyes, but wi t h t he mind,
And t her ef or e is winged Cupid pai nt ed bl i nd.
Nor hat h l ove ' s mind of any judgement taste;
Wings and no eyes f i gur e unheedy has t e.
And t her ef or e i s l ove s a i d t o be a c h i l d
Because i n choi ce he i s s o o f t begui l ed.
(I, i, 233-9)
It i s t h i s same begui l i ng l ove, a bl i nd l ove, t h a t l eads
back t o t he l i g h t i n t he pl ay. A remeat i o t a ke s pl ace
i n A Midsummer-Night's Dream, completing t he circle which
we have out l i ned i n t h i s chapt er.
66~bi d. ; Pa r t I, f i f t h di al ogue,
66a' 1~he Sonnet Sequence of 'De q l i Eroi ca Fur or i , ' i nt r od.
t o Giordano Bruno, The Heroic Fr enzi es, op. c i t . , p. 39.
Chapter I.
VENUS AND ADONIS.
Shakespeare' s f i r s t at t empt a t wr i t i ng out s i de t he
dramat i c form was t he poem Venus and Adonis. I t has been
specul at ed t h a t he wrote t he na r r a t i ve poem i n or der t o
e s t a b l i s h himself a s a s e r i ous a r t i s t , s i nc e dramas,
- <
p a r t i c u l a r l y t hose performed i n t he London t he a t r e s , w e r e
not consi dered p a i t of t he " l i t e r a t u r e n of t he t i m e .
67
Chri st opher Marlowe had achi eved success wi t h Hero and
Leander and h i s example may have persuaded Shakespeare
t o t r y h i s hand a t t he Ovidian genre. Whatever h i s r easons,
Venus and Adonis, publ i shed i n 1593, was wel l r ecei ved and
remained popul ar enough t o warrant many e di t i ons .
Despi t e i t s favourabl e r ecept i on i n El i zabet han
England, a br i e f look a t subsequent c r i t i c i s m of Venus and
Adonis r eveal s an i nor di nat e amount of di s s ens i on amongst
6 7 ~ h e Arden Edi t i on of t he Works of Shakespeare: The Poems,
ed. F.T. prince (London: Methuen & Co., l 9 6 l ) , i nt r od.
xxvi. A l l t e xt ua l quot at i ons of Venus and Adonis a r e
from t h i s e di t i on of t he poem.
s chol ar s . While t he poet s col er i dgeC8 and Keats
69
t hought t he poem a worthy example of Shakespeare' s
geni us, c r i t i c s have tended t o t ake a har sher view.
Thus H. E. Rol l i ns , when i nt r oduci ng t he Variorum
e di t i on of t he poems, coul d w r i t e : "Today s chol ar s
and c r i t i c s seldom mention Venus and Adonis and
n7 0
Lucrece wi t hout apol ogi es expressed or i mpl i ed.
Si mi l ar l y, t he r e has been argument over t he
di da c t i c nat ur e of t he poem's cont ent . Some cri t i cs
have support ed Venus, c i t i n g Shakespeare' s pos i t i ve
a t t i t u d e t o "i ncr ease" i n t he Sonnets a s evi dence.
Ot hers have found t he poem over l y e r ot i c . Fr ankl i n Dickey
and Lu Emily Pearson, whi l e t hey d i f f e r on minor poi nt s ,
c l e a r t he poem of t h i s charge by seei ng i n it a mor a l i s t i c
\
t i r a d e on t he dangers of sexual excess. Dickey a s s e r t s
t h a t Venus s i g n i f i e s a gener at i ve f or ce, i n i t s e l f accept abl e,
68~amuel Tayl or Col eri dge, l3ibliog;aphia Li t e r a r i a (1817) ,
(London: J . M. Dent, 1906) , Chap. XV: "The s p e c i f i c
symptoms of poet i c power el uci dat ed i n a c r i t i c a l a na l ys i s
of Shakespeare' s Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece, "
p. 167.
6 9 ~ e v e r a l s chol ar s make not e of a l et t er which Keats wrote
t o John Hamilton Reynolds (Nov. 22, 1817) i n which he
quoted l i n e s from Venus and Adonis sayi ng t h a t Shakespeare
nhas l e f t not hi ng t o say -about not hi ng or anyt hi ng. " ,The -
Le t t e r s of John Keat s, ed. Maurice Buxton Forman (London:
Oxford Univ. Pr. , 1935), p. 65.
7 0 ~ New Variorum Edi t i on of Shakespeare: The Poems, ed. H. E.
Rol l i ns ( Phi l adel phi a and London: 1938), p. 474.
but de s t r uc t i ve when overpowering man's r easoni ng
faculty7' ; whi l e M i s s Pearson wr i t es : "Venus i s shown
a s t he de s t r uc t i ve agent of s ens ual l ove; Adonis as
reason i n l ove, The one s u l l i e s whatever it t ouches,
t h e ot her honours and makes it beaut i f ul . 072 R. ~ u t n e y
t akes a d i f f e r e n t approach i n suggest i ng t h a t Venus and
Adonis i s "A s par kl i ng and s ophi s t i cat ed comedy . . . 1173
H e f i nds t h a t t he poem i s "of course, t he t r i f l ck
Shakespeare c a l l e d it i n h i s dedi cat i on. "74 Both t hes e
a t t i t u d e s t o t he poem ( mor al i s t i c and comic) have been
t aken t o t a s k by J. W. Lever, who comments i r oni c a l l y:
" At bes t , t her ef or e, t he poem must be t aken a s a very
funny s t or y which somehow f or ge t s t he joke, o r as a hi ghl y
caut i onar y t a l e , which i n showing t he dangers of caut i on,
does not poi nt t he moral a t a l l wel l .
175
Hereward T. Pr i ce, pl aci ng himself out s i de t he c e nt r a l
c r i t i c a l b a t t l e s , has br avel y a s s e r t e d t h a t Venus and Adonis
71~r a nkl i n M. Dickey, Not Wisely but Too W e l l (San Marino.
Cal i f . : Huntington Li b. , 1957), Chap. V; "At t i t udes toward
Love i n Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece," p. 46.
"LU Emily Pearson, El i zabet han Love Conventions (New York:
Barnes & Noble, 1933), p. 285.
7 3 ~ u f u s Putney, "Venus and Adonis : Amour wi t h ~umor , I'
Phi l ol ogkcal Quar t er l y, XX, no. 4, (October, l 9 4 l ) , p. 534.
"J. W. Lever, "Venus and t he Second Chance," Shakespeare
Survey, XV ( l 962) , p. 81.
i s e s s e n t i a l l y a t ragedy. H e f i nds t h a t t he major theme,
showing i t s ki ns hi p t o Romeo and J u l i e t and Lucrece, i s
". . . t he de s t r uc t i on of something e xqui s i t e by what i s
out rageousl y v i l e . "76 H i s argument i s chal l enged by
Huntington Brown, who cl ai ms t h a t ". . . he seems har dl y
responsi ve a t a l l t o t he de l i ght f ul s t r a i n of comedy t h a t
pervades t h e e a r l y a c t i on and t o some e xt e nt t he pa t he t i c
denouement a s wel l . "77 Brown goes on t o make h i s poi nt
t h a t " I f anyt hi ng, what we have her e i s good ver sus good,
though wi t h a measure of i mperfect i on on each s i de.
1178
J. D. Jahn, i n an art i cl e which spends most of i t s pages
- .
condemning Adonis f o r h i s coy r e f u s a l of Venus, event ual l y
f i nds himself i n Agreement wi t h Brown' s i nt e r pr e t a t i on:
Venus and Adonis, t hen, pr es ent s flawed a l t e r n a t i v e s
t h a t come out of t he carpe diem t r a di t i on. On one
hand t he r eader cannot endorse mere er ot i ci s m. Adonis
i s per cept i ve enough t o s ee that Venus makes reasan 'bawd to
l u s t ' s abuse. ' But Adonis' behavi our i s not an
accept abl e a l t e r n a t i v e e i t he r . Aside from t he f a c t
t h a t h i s coquet ry i s c r ue l , it l eads t o a l i mi t ed
underst andi ng of man's pl ace i n t he cycl e of l i f e . I t
l eads, f i n a l l y , t o waste. 79
I b~e r e wa r d T. Pr i c e , unction of Imagery i n Venus and
Adonis," Papers of t he Michigan Academy of Sci ence, A r t s
and Le t t e r s , XXXI (1945), p. 277.
7 7 ~u n t i n a t o n Brown, "Venus and Adonis : The Act i on, The
~ a r r a t Gr , - - and t he C r i t i c s , " The Michigan ~c a de mi c i a n (1969) ,
7 9 ~ . D. Jahn, "The Lamb of Lust: The Role of Adonis i n
Shakespeare' s Venus and Adonis," Shakespeare St udi es , V I
(l 97O), p. 24.
Such i s t he manner i n which modern c r i t i c i s m t ransforms
t he poem's r a t he r ambi val ent cont ent t o a s t a t e of
d e l i c a t e bal ance. The problem wi t h t h i s view' i s t h a t it
over s i mpl i f i es t h e poem. I t l i m i t s Venus t o a person-
i f i c a t i o n of excessi ve l u s t (a view which I w i l l argue
agai ns t ) and Adonis t o t he embodiment of col d c ha s t i t y.
The v i l l a i n , it cl ai ms, i s excessi veness, t her eby
reduci ng t he poem t o a si mpl e reworking of t he proverb,
" a l l t hi ngs i n moderation."
While I f i nd myself i n agreement wi t h many poi nt s
r a i s e d by t he s chol ar s T have mentioned, I have chosen
t o examine Venus and Adonis from a myt hol ogi cal per spect i ve.
I mpl i ci t i n t h i s approach i s t he convi ct i on t h a t , i n any
work of a r t , a myt hol ogi cal f i gur e r e f e r s beyond i t s e l f
t o t he cosmology from whence it came. I n ot he r words, when
we a r e present ed wi t h t h e goddess of Love, a s we a r e i n
Venus and Adonis, we a r e no l onger deal i ng wi t h t h e world
of everyday event s. It i s, of course, pos s i bl e f o r a w r i t e r
t o develop myt hol ogi cal themes wi t hout usi ng t he images of
pagan t r a di t i on. The gods a r e f or ces which do not have t o
be named t o be pr es ent (I w i l l argue t h a t t h i s i s t he case
i n Antony and Cl eopat r a) , but when t hey do appear i n t he
work of an a r t i s t , it i s unwise t o deny t h e i r di vi ni t y by
, i nt e r pr e t i ng them a s mort al . Such a s t ance can l ead t o t he
exces s i venes s which one cr i t i c di s pl a ys when de s c r i bi ng
Venus as ". . . a f l u t t e r y and appr ehensi ve Dol l Tear s heet
of f or t y.
11 80
The pr esence of Venus i n t he poe m' t e l l s us t h a t t h e
"real" wor l d has expanded t o i ncl ude t h e di vi ne. I f we
al l ow t h e e a r t h ' s s ur f a c e t o s t and as a metaphor f o r t he
"real" worl d, we can t hen see how a god o r goddess i s
capabl e of addi ng an upperworld (heaven) o r an underworl d
( h e l l ) t o our ment al geography, f o r t he s e "ot her wor l ds"
are t h e pr ovi nces of t he gods. To ques t i on whet her Adonis
i s "coy" o r Venus "lustful11 may be, i n i t s e l f , v a l i d , b u t it
s t ops s h o r t of acknowledging t h e myt hol ogi cal f or c e s which
are a t work i n t he poem. Let us s t a y wi t h t h e l a r g e r
d e f i n i t i o n of myth gi ven by Mircea El i ade:
Myth t el l s how, t hr ough t h e deeds of Super nat ur al
Bei ngs, a r e a l i t y came i n t o exi s t ence. . , . I n
s hor t , myths de s c r i be t h e var i ous and sometimes
dr amat i c br eakt hr oughs of t he s acr ed ( o r t h e
' s upe r na t ur a l ' ) i n t o t he worl d. . . . it i s as a
r e s u l t of t h e i nt e r ve nt i on of Super nat ur al Bei ngs
t h a t man hi msel f i s what he i s t oday, a mor t al ,
sexed, and c u l t u r a l bei ng. 81
Shakespear e' s main sour ce f o r Venus and Adonis w a s
Ovi d' s Metamorphoses ( e i t h e r t he o r i g i n a l o r t he Gol di ng
l oni s, I' El i zabet han
8 1 ~ i r c e a E' l i ade, Myth and Re a l i t y ( 1968) , pp. 5-6.
t r a ns l a t i on of 15671, where t he s t or y of Venus1 l ove
f o r Adonis i s recount ed i n Book X. Behind Ovid l a y a
t r a d i t i o n which as s oci at ed Adonis wi t h a series of e a r l y
veget at i on gods whose annual union wi t h t he Ear t h Goddess
produced an abundant har ves t and whose year l y deat h was
necessary f o r t h e cont i nuat i on of t he seasonal cycl e.
Though Adonis1 deat h was mourned, h i s s a c r i f i c e ensured
t he per pet uat i on of t he l i f e , deat h and r e b i r t h of na t ur a l
growth. 82 While Ovid does not stress t h e veget at i on
as pect s of Adonis, t he r e i s not hi ng i n t he Metamorphoses
which d i r e c t l y cont ravenes h i s f unct i on a s a f e r t i l i t y
god. H i s union wi t h Venus, h i s deat h and subsequent
metamorphosis, a l l t ake pl ace i n accordance wi t h t he
anci ent myth. I t i s i n Shakespeare t h a t Adonis, though
st i l l a be a ut i f ul , pot e nt i a l l y e r o t i c yout h, suddenly
becomes, f r u s t r a t i n g l y and t r a g i c a l l y , t he unwi l l i ng l over.
I t has been suggest ed t h a t examples of unrequi t ed
l ove abound i n El i zabet han poet r y and t h a t consequent l y
t he r e were many precedent s f o r Shakespeare' s r e l uc t a nt
l over . Spenser, Greene, Marlowe and Books I1 and I V of
Ovi dvs Metamorphoses have been mentioned a s pos s i bl e
8 2 ~ h e veget at i on t h e s i s i n mythology comes from James
George Fr azer , The Golden Bough, 2 Vols. ( Ne w York:
Fol c r of t Pr . , 1959, 1969), p. 111.
i nf l uences . 83 But whi l e t he s e works may have i nf l uenced
h i s t r eat ment of t h e myth, Shakespeare did n o t choose t o
w r i t e about Hero and Leander, Sal maci s and Hermaphrodi t us,
or Nar ci ssus. He wrot e of Venus and Adonis and i n recon-
*
strutting t h e i r s t o r y he depar t ed r a d i c a l l y from t h e
e s t a bl i s he d myth. I n h i s ver s i on, Venus' g i f t of l ove
i s r e j e c t e d and t h e neces s ar y uni on wi t h Adonis i s never
consuqmated. Thus t h e t ri umph of gener at i on which t h e
a nc i e nt myth c e l e br a t e s becomes, i n Shakespear e' s poem,
t h e f a i l u r e of l ove i n t h e worl d.
84
One cannot claim a v i s i o n as dar k as l ove ' s f a i l u r e ,
f o r a work which "treats s exual d e s i r e i n t h e s p i r i t of
r omant i c comedy, "85 wi t hout coming t o t e r m s wi t h t h e
humorous el ement s i n t h e poem. The comic voi c e , pr e s e nt
i n Venus and Adonis, is undeni abl e. Indeed t h e r e are
s e v e r a l i nc i de nt s where t h e mocking t one of t h e n a r r a t o r
a l l b u t domi nat es t h e a c t i on. I t i s, however, a mi st ake
t o f a l l under t h e s p e l l of t h e poe t ' s l a ught e r compl et el y.
Pr i nc e ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t he s p i r i t of Venus and Adonis i s
8 3 ~ o u g l a s Bush, Mythology & t h e Renai ssance Tr a di t i on i n
Engl i sh Poet r y (New York: W. W, Nort on, 1963) , p. 142,
See also, Narrative - and ~ r a ma t i c Sour ces of Shakespear e,
ed. Geof f r ey Bullough (London: Rout l edge & Kegan Paul ,
l 957) , I, pp. 161f f .
8 4 ~ f ol l ow t he i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of J. W. Lever i n h i s a r t i c l e
Ve nus and t h e second Chance, 'I l oc. ci t . , where t h e
negat i ve a s pe c t s of l ove i n Venus and Adonis are i nve s t i -
gat ed.
8 5 ~ r i n c e , op. ci t . , i nt r od. xxxi v.
one of "romantic comedy" f a l l s a p a r t i f one sear ches
f o r t he purpose of a b e t t e r world or f o r t he cel ebr at i on
of f e r t i l i t y which i s t he provi nce of comedy. Moreover,
as J. W. Lever poi nt s out , t he deat h of Adohis i s har dl y
s ui t a bl e ma t e r i a l f o r a work t he s ol e purpose of which
is t o amuse.
We a r e not deal i ng, t her ef or e, wi t h a comedy, but
r a t he r wi t h a na r r a t or whose per cept i on of t he poemts
event s ranges from genuine amusement t o det ached i r ony.
I n choosing t o speak through such a voi ce, Shakespeare
may have been fol l owi ng t he long t r a d i t i o n of writers who
chose t o conceal t h e s er i ous nes s of t h e i r vi s i on under
t he gui s e of l aught er . The Renaissance hel d t h a t a
di vi ne mystery was b e s t present ed t o t he publ i c i n a
s ui t a bl e di s gui s e and s o t hey employed t he use of el abor at e
metaphors, images, paradoxes and emblems t o cl oak t h e
' t r u t h 1 which t hey symbolized. One such devi ce was t o i nt e r -
weave "t he di vi ne s e c r e t s wi t h t he f a b r i c of f a bl e s , s o
t h a t anyone r eadi ng t hose hymns 'would t hi nk t hey cont ai ned
not hi ng but t h e s heer es t t a l e s and t r i f l e s . hi^
t echni que was descr i bed a s s e r i o l uder e ( l i t e r a l l y , "pl ayi ng
i n ear nes t " ) and it was der i ved from Pl at o:
8 6 ~ d g a r Wind, Pagan Myst eri es i n t he Renaissance (London:
Faber & Faber, 1958), p. 237.
Lucian, Apul ei us, even Pl ut ar ch had c ha t t e r e d
of mys t er i es i n a mocking t one. heir l i t e r a r y
manner w a s admired and copi ed not onl y by
pr of e s s i ona l s t y l i s t s l i k e Aldus, Erasmus,
Al eander, and More - it was adopt ed a l s o i n t h e
phi l os ophi cal school s. Se r i o l uder e was a
Soc r a t i c maxim of Cusanus, Fi ci no, Pi co,
Cal cagni ni - not t o mention ~ o c c h i , who i n t r o -
duced t h e ver y phr ase i n t o t he t i t l e of h i s
Symbolicae quaest i ones: ' quas s e r i o l udebat . ' 87
Si nce Shakespeare was f a mi l i a r wi t h some of t h e w r i t e r s
who fol l owed t h i s t r a d i t i o n , he may have been i nf l uenced
by them. Ce r t a i nl y t h e s t r a nge mi xt ur e of s er i ous nes s
and comedy i n Venus and Adonis s ugges t s t h a t it owes
something t o - t h e s e r i o l uder e manner.
I
Despi t e t he mocking t one, t he r e i s an under l yi ng
dar kness i n Venus and Adonis which has been not ed by
s e ve r a l cri t i cs. Pr i c e , f o r i ns t ance, sees t h e expl or -
a t i o n of t h i s dar kness a s c e n t r a l t o any di s cus s i on of
t h e poem. The world which Shakespear e' s l ove r s i nha bi t
i s, f o r him, ". . . n o t a pl e a s a nt pl ace, and t hus "The
bus i nes s bot h of t he s chol ar and of t h e cr i t i c i s t o
di s cover what happens i n t h a t world t o make it a t hi ng
of such hor r or .
I1 88
l o c ci t . ,
While I cannot accept Pr i c e ' s argument t h a t t he
world of Venus and Adonis i s flawed by t he l u s t f u l
aggr essi on of Shakespeare' s goddess, I do agr ee t h a t
t h e poem's theme c e nt r e s on t he dark o r negat i ve
f or c e s which slowly over t ake t he pa r a di s i a l condi t i on
of t he opening st anzas. While Venus pl eads i n vai n
f o r union wi t h Adonis, we move from a garden scene,
where t h e goddess l i es wei ght l ess upon a primrose bank,
s a f e from t he s e r pe nt ' s h i s s , t o a pr e- cr eat i on dark-
ness:
or he bei ng dead, wi t h him i s beauty s l a i n ,
And, beaut y dead, bl ack chaos comes again.'
W e descend, a s it were, from heaven ( par adi s e) t o h e l l ;
but it i s not t he h e l l of Chr i s t i a ni t y, r a t he r it i s t he
pagan pl ace of Tar t ar us , t he condi t i on of t he world
bef or e d i v i n i t y made or der out of chaos.
From Hesiod onwards, t he c r e a t i ng f a c t o r of t h e
world has been i de nt i f i e d a s l ove ( Er os) . I n t he anci ent
cosmologies, t he shaping of t he world began when Chaos
uni t ed wi t h Sp i r i t . Eros was born o u t of t h e i r union.
Moreover, t h i s wa s t h e onl y Eros capabl e of or der i ng t he
world. Love which wa s not informed by s p i r i t was unable
k l
1 all
t o f r e e i t s e l f from t he chaot i c condi t i on: ' ' ~h y s i c a l enjoy-
-
ment was - her e t he per cept i on of t he a nc i e nt was
ext remel y s ubt l e - i d e n t i f i e d wi t h Chaos i t s e l f , and
onl y out of i t s j oi nt ur e wi t h S p i r i t coul d d e s i r e (Eros)
come.
I, 89
A s has been di scussed i n t he i nt r oduct i on, t he c e n t r a l
pos i t i on of Aphrodite/Eros i n t he cosmology of t h e world
was c a r r i e d forward t o t he Renaissance t hrough Neoplatonism.
From Pl a t o through Pl ot i nus t o Fi ci no and Cas t i gl i one, l ove
was seen a s t he f or ce which l i f t e d man out of chaos and gave
him ent r ance t o t he s e c r e t s of cosmic or der . Si nce l ove
was t he c r e a t or of t he uni ver se ("Each of t hes e worlds i s
forml ess a t f i r s t ; but it gr adual l y t akes shape through
t he a c t i v i t y of di vi ne l ove - l ove i s t he r e f or e t h e
ul t i mat e bond of t he cosmos - nodus perpet uus e t copula
mundi " ) it followed t h a t man must be moved by l ove
bef or e he coul d t ake h i s pl ace i n t he cr eat ed world. On a
microcosmic l e ve l , man dwel t i n chaos u n t i l such t i m e a s
he, i n i t i a t e d by l ove, was abl e t o di scover di vi ne or der
bot h i n himself and i n t he world. Thi s was t he mi r acl e of
t he r a p t i o of Eros.
*' charles Olson,. The Speci al Vi e w of Hi s t or x (Berkeley,
Cal i f . : Oyez, 1970), p. 51.
' O~ohn Vyvyan, Shakespeare and Pl a t oni c Beauty (London:
Chat t o & Windus, 1970), p. 3 6 . See f oot not e 12 i n t he
I nt r oduct i on.
I n Venus and Adon'is t he power of l ove i s hel d i n t he
f i gur e of Aphrodite. Appearing i n a l l her mani f es t at i ons ,
from Aphrodite Urania t o Aphrodite Pandemos, she at t empt s
t o i n i t i a t e Adonis i n t o t he myst er i es of Eros. A t t h e
ot he r end of t he spectrum, chaos, which has t h e major sway
over Adonis from t he beginning of t he poem, l i es pas s i vel y
wai t i ng t o r ecl ai m him. The dramat i c t ens i on i n t he
poem i s b u i l t upon t he s t r uggl e between t he f or c e s of
c r e a t i on and or der , which are hel d i n t he goddess of Love,
and t he f or ces of chaos, which e nt e r t he poem i n t he
f i gur e of t he boar.
' The obj e c t f o r whom l ove and chaos compete i n t he poem
is, of course, Adonis. He appears t o dwel l i n a l and
halfway between t he two, though h i s r el uct ance t o l ove and
h i s pr e di l e c t i on f o r t he "hard hunt" show t h a t he bel ongs
more t o t he "dark, " from whence he came, t han t o t he "l i ght . "
I t i s a s t hough, - i n Adonis' case, t h e darkness, which i s
t he st at e of t he unformed wbrld, has become a m i s t .
Aphrodite can t hus percei ve, him and, moved by h i s beaut y,
judges t h a t he i s ready f o r t he experi ence of r a p t i o which
w i l l gi ve him ent r ance i n t o a l i ght e d world:
' ~ o v e i s a s p i r i t a l l compact of f i r e ,
Not gr os s t o s i nk, but l i g h t , and w i l l aspire. '
But Adonis, confused by t he haze through which he views
t he world, can s ee ne i t he r t he goddess nor t he f or ces
of chaos c l e a r l y. Exerci si ng h i s f r e e w i l l , he p e r s i s t s
i n viewing Aphrodi t e' s advances a s l u s t and he i s
equal l y i ne pt a t gauging t he dangers of hunt i ng t he boar.
Adonis' i n a b i l i t y t o per cei ve h i s s i t u a t i o n c l e a r l y
i s due, i n p a r t , t o t he "no man's l and" which he i nhabi t s .
Having, through h i s beaut y, vent ured f a r enough toward
d i v i n i t y t o a t t r a c t Venus, he i s not y e t ready f o r t he
metamorphic r e b i r t h which union wi t h t he goddess i mpl i es ,
Moreover, h i s s t a t e of confusi on, on a myt hol ogi cal l e ve l ,
i s mi rrored on a mat er i al l e ve l by h i s youth, A s an
I
adol escent he has l e f t h i s boyhood behind but has not y e t
a t t a i ne d mat ur i t y.
Though on a l l f r o n t s Adonis has reached a poi nt of
t r a n s i t i o n , he i s unable, when approached by t he goddess,
t o make t h i s r ecogni t i on. Throughout t he poem he uses
t he excuse of h i s youth a s a means of di scouragi ng t he
amorous Venus. Furthermore, t he accuracy of h i s self-image
i s upheld by t he na r r a t or who, a s D. C. Al l en poi nt s out ,
employs such images a s "a b i r d i n a t angl ed net , ""a dabchick
hi di ng i n t he waves" and "a wi l d bi r d bei ng tamed," t o e l i c i t
sympathy f o r t he i nnocent Adonis.
91 Venus, however, usi ng
' l ~ l l e n , l oc. ci t . ,
t he vi s i on which i s her di vi ne g i f t ,
i s a bl e t o per cei ve
Adonis wi t h more c l a r i t y t han e i t h e r t he na r r a t or o r t he
young hunt er hi msel f. While she acknowledges Adonis'
youth,
'The t ender s pr i ng upon t hy tempting l i p
Shews t hee unr i pe, y e t mayst thou wel l be
t ast ed. '
she recogni zes t h a t h i s beauty overshadows h i s age. I n
accordance wi t h t he Neoplatonic t eachi ng t h a t l ove i s a
d e s i r e f o r Beauty, we a r e present ed, through t he f i gur e
of Adonis, wi t h t he power of Beauty t o i n s p i r e even t he
goddess of Love.
I n Pl a t o' s Symposium Diotima t eaches t h a t , whi l e Eros
is t he gui di ng f or ce under which one climbs t he s t e ps of
t he Pl at oni c l adder , it i s Beauty which i ns pi r e s t he ascent .
Love of Beauty l eadi ng f i n a l l y t o t he per cept i on of ". . .
t h a t which i s be a ut i f ul by i t s e l f al one, . . . ' l g2 allows t h e
a s pi r i ng cl i mber t o make t he upward moves which each s t e p
of t he l adder demands. The i ns pi r a t i ona l powers of Beauty
pl ay a c e n t r a l r o l e i n Pl ot i nus ' phi l osophy, a s t hey do f o r
Fi ci no, who def i nes l ove a s ' I . . . a de s i r e f o r t he f r u i t i o n
9 2 ~ l a t o , symposium, t r a ns . Ben jamin Jowet t , i n The Dialogues
of Pl at o, I1 (London: Sphere Books, 1970), p. 225.
of beaut y, . . . and t h i s de f i ni t i on of l ove i s
r e i t e r a t e d by t he aut hor s of t he Tr ' at t a' t i ' d'amore
who al most unanimously agree t h a t l ove i s a d e s i r e f o r
beauty.
The vdi ce of t he goddess i n Venus and Adonis
s t ands al one i n acknowledging t he power of beaut y. The
na r r a t or s t a ys i n t he background whi l e Adonis, hi msel f ,
though he i ndul ges i n nar ci ssi sm, seems l a r ge l y unaware
of t he ext ensi ve power he hol ds. But Venus, who i s he r s e l f
i ns pi r ed by h i s beaut y, cont i nual l y reminds us of i t s
di vi ne or i gi ns .
I n her i n i t i a l addr ess t o Adonis, Venus gi ves an
i ndi cat i on of t he qua l i t y of h i s beaut y when she c a l l s
him "Thri ce f a i r e r t han myself." ( 7) It i s t h e provi nce
of Venus, a s bot h Aphrodite Uran'ia and Aphrodite"Pandehos,
t o r a di a t e ". . . t he di vi ne goodness which mani f est s
i t s e l f i n beaut y, . . . l t g 4 and t h i s power she mul t i pl i e s
by t hr e e when speaking of Adonis. That a mor t al shoul d
sur pass, i n f a i r ne s s , a goddess who i s famed f o r t h i s
qua l i t y, i s abnormal. Ti me and agai n t h e anci ent myths
warn agai ns t such hubr i s. The s t or y of Psyche and Eros,
3 ~ i c i n o , ~ o n v i t o , t r ans . Erwin Panof sky, i n s t u d i e s i n
Iconology (London: Oxford Univ. Pr . , 1939, 19671, p. 141.
. 94i bi d. , pp.
f a mi l i a r t o El i zabet han England through William Adl i ngt on' s
t r a ns l a t i on of Apuleius, recount s t he i mpropri et y of
immortal beaut y i nvest ed i n e a r t hl y form. Moreover, t he
Renaissance bel i eved t h a t s i nce di vi ne beaut y f i l t e r e d
down t o t he e a r t h through many spher es o r heavens, t he r e
coul d be no pe r f e c t beauty of ear t h.
95
Adonis i s, however, di s t i ngui s hed from ot he r mor t al s
by v i r t u e of h i s unique bi r t h. Nat ure, Venus t e l l s us ,
def i ed her own laws when she cr eat ed t he be a ut i f ul ysut h,
f ashi oni ng him ". . . wi t h her s el f a t s t r i f e , ' t (11). Like
Prometheus, she s t o l e h i s beaut y and brought h i s form t o
e a r t h : I
Cynthia f o r shame obscures he r s i l v e r s hi ne,
T i l l f or gi ng Nature be condernnld of t r eas on,
For s t e a l i n g moulds from heaven t h a t were
di vi ne ;
Wherein she fram' d t hee i n hi gh heaven' s
de s pi t e ,
To shame t he sun by day and he r by night. '
Thus, bet r ayi ng uni ver s al law, Nature gave e a r t hl y form t o
t h a t beaut y which had h i t h e r t o belonged t o di vi ni t y.
A s beauty i n t he Neoplatonic system a c t i v a t e s t he
uni ver se, s o Adonis, i n microcosmic form, i s e s s e n t i a l t o
t he a c t i v i t y of t he world:
' ~ a t u r e t h a t made t hee, wi t h he r s e l f a t s t r i f e ,
Sa i t h t h a t t he world hat h ending wi t h t hy
l i f e . '
Without beaut y a t i t s cent r e, t he cosmic or der col l aps es ,
and Adonis mi r r or s t h i s cat as t r ophe on ear t h. With him
"is beaut y s l a i n v and t h i s s i g n i f i e s not onl y t he coming
of "black chaos, " but a l s o t he "mutual overthrow of mort al
ki nd "96:
*To w a i l h i s deat h who l i v e s and must not d i e
T i l l mutual overthrow of mort al ki nd;
For he being dead, with him i s beaut y s l a i n ,
And, beaut y dead, bl ack chaos comes again.'
Y e t , whi l e he l i ved, Adonis not onl y capt ured t he goddess
of Love, but a l s o, Venus t e l l s us , walked Orpheus-like
throughout t he world, charming a l l na t ur a l cr eat ur es :
'To see h i s f ace t he l i on walk' d al ong,
Behind some hedge, because he would not f e a r
him.
To r e c r e a t e himself when he hat h sung,
The t i g e r would be tame and gent l y hear him.
I f he had spoke, t he wolf would l eave h i s prey,
And never f r i g h t t he s i l l y lamb t h a t day.'
' %rince makes not e of t he passage, comparing it t o Rom. I,
i f 222ff:, and 0t h. 111, iii, 91ff. ! and s t a t i ng: "Here
t he cosmlc appl i cat i on of t he concel t r e c a l l s t he l oose
Pl at oni c t r a d i t i o n wi t hi n which Shakespeare wrote."
Such is the manner in which Venus perceives her
reluctant lover. She sees divine beauty in Adonis and
thus, following Neoplatonic tradition, has no choice but
to love him. We are invited, by the narrator, to mock
the goddess who finds herself so ensnared. The situation
does, indeed, lend itself to the comic voice. Nevertheless,
the events of the poem uphold the accuracy of Venusv
vision. Adonis does die according to her prophecy and
chaos does triumph when, at the end of the poem, both
beauty and love leave the world. But while Adonis lives,
Venus, inspired by his beauty, unfolds her composite
nature in an effort to woo him away from chaos into a
world informed by Eros.
The Venus in Shakespeare's poem contains elements
of both Aphrodite Urania and Aphrodite Pandemos. Tn
bringing these seemingly contradictory aspects of the
goddess together, Shakespeare was following a Renaissance
tradition which sought to convey that it was through the
union of these contraries that her divine nature was most
truly expressed. 97 A system which proposed a strong
opposition between the heavenly and natural manifestations
of the goddess allowed for no commerce between the divine
97~ind, op. cit., pp. 138-9.
and mat er i al worlds. On t h e ot he r hand, i f Aphrodite
Pandemos appeared, a s she di d i n t he works of Bo t t i c e l l i ,
a s a goddess of f e r t i l i t y who a l s o r e f e r r e d back t o he r
heavenly sister, t hen she coul d be seen a s t he "power
t h a t moves t h e v i s i b l e world, i nf us i ng t he t r anscendent
or der i n t o t he cor por eal .
,898
Shakespeare' s goddess, though she i s predominantly of
t he e a r t h, does cont ai n el ement s of he r heavenly sister.
As Venus. Urania, she is abl e t o per cei ve a beaut y i n
Adonis which t r anscends t he physi cal :
'Had I no eyes, but ears, my ears would l ove
That inward beaut y and i n v i s i b l e . . .
'
( 433- 4)
Moreover, she i s a bl e t o o f f e r him t he experi ence of
'.
r a p t i o which i s promised i n t he l i n e s ,
'Love i s a s p i r i t a l l compact of f i r e ,
Not gr os s t o s i nk, but l i g h t , and w i l l aspi re. '
A s t he c e l e s t i a l Venus, a c t i ng through he r e a r t hl y
count er par t , she ". . . t akes hold of t he i nt er medi ar y
f a c u l t i e s i n man,
and impels him t o
i. e. , i magi nat i on and s ens ual per cept i on,
pr ocr eat e a l i kenes s of di vi ne beauty
op. ' c' i t . ,
i n t he phys i cal world. w99
Venus admonishes Adonis count l es s t i mes on t he
f u t i l i t y of h i s chas t e s t a t e . Her argument i s based on
t he t heory of "i ncr eas e, " which Shakespeare a l s o champions
i n s ever al of t he sonnet s. While she tempts Adonis wi t h
t he promise of i mmort al i t y which pr ocr eat i on cont ai ns ,
'And s o i n s p i t e of deat h t hou dos t s ur vi ve,
I n t h a t t hy l i kenes s still i s l e f t alive.'
('173-4)
she a l s o s t r e s s e s t he r e s pons i bi l i t y of each man t o
cont r i but e t o t h e wor l d' s bounty,
' Seeds s pr i ng from seeds, and beaut y br eedet h
beaut y;
Thou wast begot, t o g e t it i s t hy dut y, '
(166-81
\
The images Venus uses r e f l e c t her na t ur a l f unct i on, f o r
as t he t e r r e s t r i a l Aphrodite, she i s not onl y r es pons i bl e
f o r t he r e c r e a t i on of di vi ne beauty on e a r t h, but a l s o
f o r pl ant i ng t he seeds of God's di vi ne pr i nc i pl e s Crationes
i n t o t he mat er i al world. 100
Adonis, however,
f i r ml y r ef us es t o be wooed by t he argument f o r i ncr eas e.
100
Walter C. Curry, Shakespeare' s Phi l osoph' i cal Pa t t e r ns
(Loui si ana St a t e Uni v. -Pr. , 1937, 1959), p. 40. See
f oot not e 53 i n t he I nt r oduct i on.
-
I n f r us t r a t i on, Venus r e c a l l s f o r Adonis t h e example
of t he gr e a t war god, mai nt ai ni ng t h a t f o r her sake he
has r el i nqui s hed h i s power i n b a t t l e . She i s speaking
of t he unarmed Mars:
'Over my a l t a r s hat h he hung h i s l ance,
H i s b a t t e r ' d s hi e l d, h i s uncont r ol l ed c r e s t ,
And f o r my sake hat h l ear n' d t o s por t and
dance,
To t oy, t o wanton, da l l y, smi l e and j e s t .,.
t
The devi ce of s e r i o l uder e can be heard i n t hes e l i n e s ,
f o r underneath t he mocking f l avour which Shakespeare
gi ves t o her t a l e , l i e s t he mystery of t he union of
Mars and Venus, recorded i n Ovi d' s Metamorphoses, Book I V,
which c e l e br a t e s t h e Triumph of Love. From Lucr et i us ,
101
t o Pi co d e l l a Mirandola, lo2 t he di s c or di a concors of t he
uni on. of t he goddess of Love and t he god of W a r f as ci nat ed
a r t i s t s and hhi l osophers a l i ke . Si nce by uni t i ng he r s e l f
wi t h Mars, Venus t a m e s and mi t i gat es h i s war l i ke nat ur e,
c r e a t i ng a harmony and a beauty gr e a t e r t han e i t h e r god o r
goddess hol ds when s o l i t a r y , Shakespeare may have i ncl uded
1l l ' wi t h Lucr et i us , who, we remember, i nt e r pr e t e d Venus
a s t he g r e a t gener at i ve f or ce i n nat ur e, she al one
i s capabl e of ne ut r a l i z i ng t he de s t r uc t i ve pr i nc i pl e
symbolized by Mars" Panofsky, op. ci t . , p. 164.
10 2 I1
. . . - f o r t h i s reason it i s s a i d by t he poet s t h a t
Venus l oves Mars, because Beauty, which we c a l l Venus,
cannot s u b s i s t wi t hout cont r ar i et y; and t h a t Venus tames
and mi t i gat es Mars, because t he tempering power r e s t r a i n s
and overcomes t he s t r i f e and hat e which p e r s i s t between
cont r ar y elements. " Pi co d e l l a Mirandola, "On t he gener al
nat ur e of beaut y, " Cornmento I V , v i , quoted i n Wind, op.
p i t _ . o- 89.
the episode to demonstrate the possibility of a
harmonious union, in the poem, between the opposing
natures of the goddess and the beautiful, but reluctant,
youth.
On its simplest level the "contrariety" between
Venus and Adonis can be seen as procreative love in
opposition to chaste beauty. This opposition is
further developed by the fact that while Venus pursues
the youth, hoping to unite with him, Adonis desires
only to hunt the boar. His beauty is thus informed by
an aggression which works against the attainment of a
discordia concors,.
With the beneficial example of War subdued by
Love to her credit (the union of Mars and Venus),
Venus attempts to win over the youth's rare beauty. In
accordance with the Renaissance motto, "Pulchritude -
Arnor - - Voluptas" (which Ficino describes as a microcosm
of the circuitus spiritualis, equating emanatio with
pulchritudo, raptio with Amor and remeatio with voluptas,
103
-
Venus tries to produce a "divine pleasure" (volupt'as) by
uniting the love which Adonis has inspired in her with
his beauty. Moreover, she is not merely concerned with
lo3wind, op. cit., Chap. 111, "The Medal of Pico della
Mirandola, " esp. pp. 43-6.
I
he r own g r a t i f i c a t i o n , s i nce her o f f e r of l ove i ncl udes
a metamorphosis f o r Adonis:
' The k i s s s h a l l be t hi ne own a s wel l a s mine.'
(117)
Lef t i n i t s v i r g i n a l s t a t e , a s Venus poi nt s out , Adonis'
chas t e beauty i s a negat i ve f or ce i n t he world, but
coupled wi t h her di vi ne nat ur e it would produce a
di s cor di a concors.
Though Venus enact s , by de s i r i ng union wi t h Adonis,
t he a s pi r i ng nat ur e of l ove, she a l s o cont ai ns a dar ker
s i de. The f r enzy of passi on which she f e e l s f o r t h e
be a ut i f ul youth occasi onal l y br i ngs f o r t h her devouring
aspect . The images of Venus a s a bi r d of prey are
some of t he most memorable i n t he poem. For example:
Even a s an empty eagl e, shar p by f a s t ,
T i r e s wi t h he r beak on f e a t he r s , f l e s h and bone,
Shaking her wings, devouring a l l i n has t e,
T i l l e i t h e r gorge he s t u f f ' d o r prey be gone:
Even s o she ki s s ' d h i s brow, h i s cheek, h i s chi n,
And where she ends she dot h anew begin.
The f e r oc i t y which she di s pl ays i n t hes e l i n e s was
recogni zed by th,e Renaissance a s p a r t of her nat ur e. It
was t hought t o der i ve from her union wi t h Mars, s i nc e i n
conquering t he war god she assumed p a r t of h i s savagery.
The mystery of this transposition was expressed in the
paradox that "True fierceness is thus conceived as
potentially amiable, and true amiability as potentially
fierce. "Io4 However, though it is the martial Venus
who is portrayed throughout the poem as a bird of prey,
it must not be forgotten that it is not an expression
of Mars alone, but of Mars in Venus. Therefore, as the
images suggest, the devouring aspect is tempered by love, ::
for Venus, both as an eagle and as a vulture (547-52), has
as her quarry the kiss of love: "Even so she kisstd his
brow, his cheek, his chin." M. C. Bradbrook writes
concerning this "kiss' :
I
Venus is an eagle, a vulture, a wild bird and a
falcon. She is the beast of prey and Adonis the
hunted quarry; she had hunted Adonis, and to
escape he hunts the boar. When the boar kills
him, it seems only to be repeating Venus'
insensate possessiveness:
br ad I been toothld like him, I must confess,
,105
With kissing him I should have killed him first.
Miss Bradbrook1s statement, that the boar only repeats
the ferocity inherent in Venus, overlooks the point that
to die by the kiss of a goddess was a metaphor for initi-
ation into the holy mysteries of Eros.
lo4wind, op. cit.,
lo5n. C. Bradbrook, Shakespeare and Elizabethan Poetry
(Londop: Chatto & Windus, 1965), p. 63. The quotation
is from lines 1117-18 in Venus and Adonis.
The use of predat ory, rapaci ous bi r ds , a s an image
f o r l ove' s metamorphic powers, w a s common t o Anci ent
and Renaissance mythologies a l i ke . Homer, Vi r g i l and
0vid106 mention t h a t t he be a ut i f ul Ganymede, f a i r e s t of
mor t al s, was abducted t o heaven by Zeus i n t he form of
an eagl e. Lat er a r t i s t s i nt e r pr e t e d t h i s abduct i on as
a metaphor f o r t he di vi ne experi ence of r a pt i o: "For t he
Renaissance, . . . it was a mat t er of course t o pr e f e r
an i nt e r pr e t a t i on which connected t he myth of Ganymede
wi t h t he Neoplatonic doct r i ne of the f ur or di vi nus.
"107
The eagl e appears as an image of t h i s myst i c r a pt ur e i n
Dant e' s Pur gat or i o I X where, l i k e Ganymede, t he poet i s
r a i s e d i n t he e a gl e ' s claws t o a hi gher heaven,(PLATE 1).
108
The same bi r d appears agai n i n Michelangelo' s drawing of
I
t he abduct i on of Ganymede, a work which shows t he be a ut i f ul 1
\
youth l i f t e d ". . . i n a s t a t e of t r ance wi t hout a w i l l o r
a t hought of h i s own, reduced t o passi ve immobility by t he
i r on g r i p of t he gi ga nt i c eagl e, "log a drawing made i n 1532
f o r t he boy Tomasso C a v a l i e r i , ~ symbolize t he f ur or Wlatorius.
l o611i ad XX, 232-35; Aeneid V, 252ff. ; Metamorphoses X, 155ff.
107~anof sky, op. c i t . , p. 214. And, I t . . . h i s abduct i on
denot es t he rise of t he Mind t o a s t a t e of enr apt ur ed
contemplation. " p. 215.
l o81n t he ~ a r a d i s o cant o I XXX, t he eagl e i n t he heaven of
J upi t e r i s formed of a c ons t e l l a t i on of movinq angel s ,
cont i nui ng t he s t a t e of r apt ur e (wi t hout f ur or ) t o t he
hi gkes t of heavens.
109~anof sky, op. c i t . , p. 216.
PLATE 1. Mi chel angel o ( a f t e r ) , "~anymede , "
Chalk Drawing f o r Tomasso ~ a v a l i e r i ,
1532.
PLATE 2. Gustave Dore, Illustration for - The
I
Divine Comedy, Paradise canto 9.
( Pl a t e 2 ) . It is not s t r ange, t her ef or e, t h a t Venus
shoul d appear a s a bi r d of prey when of f e r i ng t h e
experi ence of r a pt i o, as her k i s s i mpl i es , t o t he
r e l uc t a nt Adonis. The words "r apt ur e, " meaning
e c s t a t i c de l i ght , and " r a pt or i a l , " meaning an or der of
b i r d s of prey, c a l l e d t he Raptores, are et ymol ogi cal l y
l i nked, a s are r apt us , "sei zed and c a r r i e d of f " (our
modern word "rape") and r apt i o.
There emerges, i n Shakespeare' s poem, a goddess of
formi dabl e powers. She cont ai ns t he heavenly, t e r r e s t r i a l ,
mat ernal , pr ocr eat i ve and ma r t i a l or der s of l ove. She
can o f f e r i mmort al i t y on t he one hand and devour s exual l y
on t he ot he r , wi t hout l os i ng t he t o t a l i t y which is her
t r u e nat ur e. As Venus Urania she o f f e r s Adonis l ove
t h a t i s ". . . a l l compact of f i r e , " whi l e a s Aphrodite
Pandemos she promises him ki s s e s t o que l l t he hunger of
love: .
'And y e t not cl oy t hy l i p s wi t h l oa t h' d s a t i e t y ,
But r a t he r famish them amid t h e i r plenty.'
When he r ef us es t o respond t o such a g i f t , she o f f e r s him
a l l t he de l i ght s . of he r body i n t he famous concei t :
' I ' l l be a pa.rk and thou s h a l t be ny deer ;
Feed where thou w i l t , on mountain o r i n dal e:
Graze on my l i p s , and i f t hose h i l l s be dr y,
St r ay lower, where t he pl eas ant f ount ai ns l i e .
*
I n her mat ernal mani f es t at i on she hol ds Adonis as
t ender l y a s a babe:
' Fondl i ng, ' she s a i t h , ' s i nce I have hernrn'd t hee
he r e
Within t he c i r c u i t of t h i s i vor y pal e ., .
'
And a s Venus Genet ri x, she cont i nual l y warns him of t h e
dangers of self-imposed c ha s t i t y:
' Fai r fl owers t h a t a r e not gat her ' d i n t h e i r
prime
Rot and consume themselves i n l i t t l e t i me . '
. I
(131-2).
When t he example ,of h i s horse f a i l s t o convince Adonis
t h a t h i s pos i t i on i s unnat ur al , Venus r e s o r t s t o he r
ma r t i a l as pect and a t t a c ks him. But a l l i n vai n, f o r
Adonis s t e a df a s t l y r ef us es t o respond t o any of her
arguments.
I n h i s innocence and i nexperi ence, Adonis does not
comprehend t he nat ur e of t he g i f t s wi t h which he i s
present ed. H e r e j e c t s pr ocr eat i ve l ove, cl ai mi ng,
'You do it f o r i ncr ease: 0 s t r ange excuse,
When reason i s t he bawd t o l u s t ' s abuse.'
Venus, however, has argued t h a t it i s self-imposed
c ha s t i t y, not pr ocr eat i on, which de f e a t s beaut y. Her
argument i s s o c e nt r a l t o t he theme of t he poem t h a t I
would l i k e t o quot e key passages of it i n f u l l :
' Rich preys make t r u e men t hi eves ; s o do t hy l i p s
Make modest Dian cloudy and f or l or n
Lest she shoul d s t e a l a k i s s and d i e forsworn.
Now of t h i s dark ni ght I per cei ve t he reason:
Cynthia f o r shame obscures he r s i l v e r s hi ne,
T i l l f or gi ng nat ur e be condemnld of t r eas on,
For s t e a l i n g moulds from heaven, t h a t were di vi ne:
Wherein she fram' d t hee, i n hi gh heavenl s de s pi t e
To shame t he sun by day and her by ni ght .
And t her ef or e hat h she b r i b l d t he d e s t i n i e s
To c r os s t h e cur i ous workmanship of nat ur e,
To mingle beauty wi t h i n f i r mi t i e s
And pure per f ect i on wi t h impure def eat ur e,
Making it s ubj e c t t o t he t yranny
Of mad mischances and much misery.'
The crime which nat ur e committed when, a ga i ns t uni ver s al
law, she cr eat ed, i n Adonis, pe r f e c t beaut y on e a r t h, i s
\
t o be avenged by t he chas t e Diana. Feari ng t he power of
beauty, she w i l l rob it of i t s di vi ni t y, causi ng it t o
"mingle wi t h i nf i r mi t i e s " and become " t he s ubj e c t of
tyranny. " Si nce beauty i ns pi r e s l ove, l ove a l s o w i l l d i e
and t h i s a c t w i l l br i ng an end t o t he world. For Diana,
Venus t el l s us, has sworn " nat ur e' s deat h, f o r framing t hee
s o f a i r . " ( 7 4 4 ) .. I n Venus and Adonis, c ha s t i t y, a s it i s
hel d i n t he vi r gi n goddess, cannot admit Eros and s o imposes
i t s st eri l e condi t i on on t he world of t he poem.
Though Adonis i s t he c e nt r e of t he cosmic feud between
nat ur e and c ha s t i t y, he cannot accept t he l ove which would,
by drawing him i n t o a world ordered by di vi ni t y, save
him from des t r uct i on. The s i ngl e form of l ove he
acknowledges i s h i s enthusiasm f o r t h e hunt:
Rose-cheekfd Adonis hi ed him t o t he chase;
Hunting he l o v f d , but l ove he l aughf d t o scorn
Not onl y does h i s passi on f o r hunt i ng r e f l e c t h i s a f f i l i a t i o n
wi t h Diana, t he hunt r es s , but it i s a l s o, i n h i s cas e, an
e s s e n t i a l l y n a r c i s s i s t i c a c t , cal cul at ed t o enhance h i s
.,
self-image, It i s t he same n a r c i s s i s t i c q u a l i t y which s o
bl i nds Adonis t o t he presence of Eros i n t he world. When
approached by t he goddess, he e i t h e r d i s c r e d i t s l ove by
naming it l u s t , o r he pl eads h i s young age, f o r he i s not
capabl e of breaki ng open t he cl os ed c i r c l e of s e l f -
admi rat i on, Venus, he r s e l f , suggest s t h i s when she compares
him t o t he be a ut i f ul boy Narci ssus:
' 1s t hi ne own h e a r t t o t hi ne own f a c e af f ect ed?
Can t hy r i g h t hand s e i z e l ove upon t hy l e f t ?
Then woo t hys e l f , be of t hys el f r e j e c t e d;
St e a l t hi ne own freedom, and complain on t h e f t ,
Narci ssus so himself himself forsook,
And di ed t o k i s s h i s shadow i n t he brook.'
I mpl i c i t i n t he pot e nt i a l union
a ki nd of deat h. Though t he l i nki ng
I
of Venus and Adonis i s
of deat h wi t h t he sexual
act was a common enough theme in Renaissance literature,
the love which Venus has to offer not only includes a
metaphorical death for Adonis, but also points toward a
rebirth into the mystery of Eros: "To die was to be loved
110
by a god and partake through him (her) of eternal bliss."
Adonis, however, blind to her example and unheedful of her
'Do I delight to die, or life desire?
But now I liv'd, and life was death's annoy;
But now I died, and death was lively joy.'
- holds firmly to his argument that
I
* My love to love is love but to disgrace it;
For I have heard it is a life in death,
That laughs and weeps, and all but with a
breath. '
(412-14)
Adonis not only consistently refuses Venus, but he
is also adamant that he will hunt the boar. He remains
as deaf to her arguments against this hunt as he does to
her offer of love, refusing to substitute a tamer animal
in its place. While Venus' quarry is love and the 'quest
of her hunt is Adonis, his quarry shall be the animal of
blind chaos and death, a beast as short-sighted as himself.
From Adonis' poi nt of view, hunt i ng t h e b r u t a l c r e a t ur e i s
s a f e r t han sur r ender i ng t o t he embraces of t h e goddess.
He w i l l not s t e p i n t o her spread n e t s nor i n t o t he t r a p of
l ove, seeki ng, i ns t ead, t he obj e c t of h i s own hunt . The
boar i s merely an obj e c t i n h i s per sonal l andscape which he
presumes he w i l l hunt and s l ay. Moreover, t h e success of
t h i s bl i nd det ermi nat i on i s meant t o s t r engt hen h i s s e l f -
esteem and consequent l y t o r e i nf or c e t he cl osed c i r c l e of
admi rat i on i n which he l i ve s . Uni t i ng wi t h Venus, on t he
ot he r hand, would i nvol ve opening t h i s c i r c l e - a
t e r r i f y i n g experi ence, r i g h t l y as s oci at ed wi t h a r a pt ur e
aki n t o deat h - t o i ncl ude t he gi vi ng, r ecei vi ng and
r et ur ni ng of l ove (emanatio, r a p t i o and r emeat i o) , f o r
t he goddess ". . . def i ned, a s it were, t he uni ver s al
system of exchange by which di vi ne g i f t s a r e gr aci ous l y
c i r c ul a t e d. 11111 By cl os i ng himself of f f r om t he v i t a l
f or ces of l i f e, Adonis i s t rapped wi t hi n a mi r r or t h a t w i l l
break open upon chaos. H e i s vul ner abl e t o t he a t t a c k of
t he boar which he hunt s. Venus knows t h i s and i n a
des per at e at t empt t o di ssuade him, she f o r e t e l l s h i s doom:
' I prophesy t hy deat h, my l i v i n g sorrow,
I f thou encount er wi t h t he boar to-morrow.'
She i s, however, powerless t o hel p him. M. C. Bradbrook
, wr i t e s : "Venus has no super nat ur al powers; she i s a s he l pl e s s
111
Wind, op. c i t . , P. 88.
as any count ry lass t o save Adonis o r even reach him
qui ckl y. "'I2 Cont rary t o t h i s , I. bel i eve t h a t Venus i s
powerl ess, not because she l acks s uper nat ur al powers,
but because Adonis has r ef used t o admit her d i v i n i t y
i n t o h i s cl osed world. She cannot e n t e r a s i t u a t i o n
which has not welcomed her presence.
A world which i s not informed by t he ent r ance of
Eros i s one where chaos r ei gns supreme and it i s wi t hi n
t h i s c ha ot i c l andscape t h a t Shakespeare' s boar dwel l s.
The boar, al one among t he c r e a t ur e s of t h e world, has not
t he s i g h t t o be moved by Adonis' beaut y and s o he has
power t o k i l l him. Venus t el l s us t h a t t he boar, r e f l e c t i n g
I
an a f f i l i a t i o n wi t h chaos, never l i f t s h i s eyes from t h e
ground:
' But t h i s f oul , grim, and urchin-snouted boar,
Whose downward eye s t i l l l ooket h f o r a grave,
N e ' e r s a w t he beauteous l i ve r y t h a t he wore'
(1105-7)
Moreover, any upward gaze which t h e ani mal , i ns pi r ed by
Adonisf beaut y, might have been capabl e o f , s o enr apt ur ed
him t h a t he unwi t t i ngl y k i l l e d t he youth:
* I f he di d s ee h i s f ace, why t hen I know
H e t hought t o k i s s him, and hat h k i l l t d him soot
l l 2 ~r a d b r o o k , op. ci t . , p. 64.
There i s, however, no reason f o r t he boar ' s a t t a c k ot her
t han h i s own s ur vi val . A bl i nd br ut e, he a c t s accordi ng
t o h i s i n s t i n c t s i n a world where i n s t i n c t s run wild.
H e i s, i ndeed, ". . . a mi ndl ess nemesis a t t he cor e of
l i f e . 11113
The deat h of Adonis symbolizes t he deat h, on e a r t h, of
t h a t beaut y which i n s p i r e s love. Love i n t h e form of
Venus i s f or ever severed from beaut y and s o t he c i r c u i t u s
s p i r i t u a l i s of Pulchritudo-Amor-Voluptas - i s broken, not
j u s t f o r t h e i ndi vi dual ( i n t he cas e of Adoni s), but f o r
t he e n t i r e world: ". . . t he anci ent Eros has become t he
pr i nc i pl e not onl y of Li f e but of Li ght , - Li ght pursui ng
and penet r at i ng darkness. "'I4 Si nce t he c r e a t i on of
Voluptas t hrough t he union of l ove and beaut y i s no
l onger pos s i bl e, "black chaosvt w i l l , i ndeed, "come agai n, "
a darkness uninformed by l i g h t and love.
The l owest form of phys i cal a t t r a c t i o n which i s, i n
i t s e l f , i de nt i f i e d wi t h chaos, i s a l l t h a t i s l e f t a f t e r
t he deat h of Adonis. Venus pa i nt s t h i s grim pi c t ur e when
she f o r e t e l l s t he f ut ur e of l ove i n t he world. The f a l l
of l ove which s he prophesi es has been pr es ent i n di s gui s ed
l135. W. Lever, l oc. C i t . , p. 84.
l l 4 ~ a n e E. Harri son, Prolegomena t o t he Study of Greek
Rel i gi on (New York: Meridian Books, 1955) , p. 645.
forms from t h e begi nni ng of t h e poem. Love which de ni e s
t h e e nt r a nc e of s p i r i t has caused Adonis t o br i ng f o r t h
t h e l u s t f u l el ement s of t he goddess, a t t h e expense of
he r composi t e nat ur e. Venus does not , however, blame
Adonis. H e appear s t o be, i n he r eyes , mer el y t h e vi ct i m.
H e r anger i s r a t h e r d i r e c t e d t oward a worl d i n which t h e
move from i nnocence t o exper i ence de ni e s t h e e xi s t e nc e
of t h e di vi ne. But Venus is t h e goddess of l ove, h e r s e l f ,
and s o pe r s oni f i e d s he cannot r e a l l y s t o p l ovi ng. Li nes
such as
' Si t h i n h i s pri me Death dot h my l ove de s t r oy,
They t h a t l ove b e s t t h e i r l ove s h a l l n o t enjoy.'
(1163-4)
- s ugges t t h a t s he acts o u t of s p i t e , b u t h e r prophecy
i s r e a l l y a mel anchol y s t at ement of foreknowl edge. She
does not s a y "I cur s e, " b u t r a t h e r , "I prophesy, " and
t h e f u t u r e of l ove which s he f o r e c a s t s i s one i n which Er os
i s n o t pr e s e nt , where l ove i s s u b j e c t t o a wor l d of
unguided chaos.
The most not a bl e a s pe c t of l ove i n t h e f a l l e n worl d,
Venus t el l s us , i s i mbal ance. A l l t h e images of t h i s s e c t i on
of t h e poem are ones i n which c o n t r a r i e s clash i n di s cor d
and harmony (as it i s hel d i n Er os) i s not a b l e t o u n i t e
them. Love which shoul d be t h e e t e r n a l p r i n c i p l e of uni on
f i nds "sweet begi nni ng, but unsavoury end " (1138).
Si mi l ar l y,
'The s t r onge s t body s h a l l it make most weak,
St r i k e t he wise dumb and t each t he f ool t o
speak. *
Love, t he uni t i ng pr i nc i pl e of a l l c ont r a r i e s , male and
female, has become bl i nd, t he unguided l ove which moves
i n e r r o r through di vi ded chaos. The c onf l i c t i ng images
become dar ker and dar ker , cul mi nat i ng i n t he bl ackes t :
'It s h a l l be cause of war and d i r e event s ,
And set di s s ens i on ' t wi xt t he son and sire;
Subj ect and s e r v i l e t o a l l di s cont ent s ,
As dr y combustious mat t er i s t o f i r e. '
(1159-62)
Love was meant t o c r e a t e harmony out of di s cor d, t o uni t e
c ont r a r i e s , t o l ead t o t he apex of beauty. I ns t ead we
have t he t r a g i c i nver s i on of bl i nd love. Love w i l l be t he
cause of f u r t h e r di s cor d and chaos, war and s t r i f e , i n t he
world. Because Adonis coul d not see l ove, she, t oo, has
become s i g h t l e s s i n t he f i n a l climax of des pai r which cl os es
t he poem. It i s t he f i n a l st at ement of t he vi c t or y of
deat h, chance and chaos over bot h beaut y and di vi ne l ove.
Adonis i s, however, accorded a modified t ype of
"r es ur r ect i on. " I n t h e anci ent myth h i s r e b i r t h was t he
cel ebr at ed r e t ur n of annual f e r t i l i t y t o t he e a r t h. I n Ovid,
the metamorphosis takes the form of a continually present
reminder and renewal of Venus' love for Adonis. Moreaver,
the goddess, herself, creates the flower which immortalizes
her lover, the fragile anemone.
115 In Shakespeare's poem,
Adonis' transformation does not herald the return of
fertility and beauty, nor is Venus the agent of the seasonal
cycle. The event of his reappearance happens independently
and the youth who was described as "The field's chief
flower,'' ( 8 ) , becomes exactly and literally that. The
anemone, a short-lived and beautiful spring flower, could
signify, in Shakespeare's poem, the mutability of beauty
in the fallen world. Adonis does, however, receive, in
death, the raptio which he refused Venus in his lifetime.
Like an eagle deserting the lower world of nature's chaos,
Venus takes the flower with her through the "empty skies"
to Paphos, the island where she was born from the sea, where
she intends to stay forever, far from the reaches of
mankind.
ll50vid, Metamorphoses, end of Bk. X: "But the enjoyment of
this flower is of brief duration: for it is so fragile,
its petals so lightly attached, that it quickly falls,
shaken from its stem by those same winds that give it
its name, anemone.'' Trans. Mary M. Innes (penguin Books,
l955), p. 245.
Chapter 11,
A MIDSUMMER-NIGHT ' S DREAV.
From the fallen world of Venus and Adonis, a world
which Aphrodi te , herself, abandoned, leaving only her
mournful prophecies, we move to the optimistic and
celebratory realm of A Midsummer-Night's Dream. I have
chosen to move in this direction because the play, through
its positive forces, balances the essentially negative
tone of Venus and Adonis. It is the other side of the
poem. If the failure of love dominated Venus and Adonis,
then the success of love is the subject of the play. While
in the narrative poem we watched the transforming powers of
~ r o s defeated, one by one, the opposite is true of
A Midsummer-Night's Dream. The movement of the play, in
contrast to the reductive action of Venus and Adonis, is
ultimately magically expansive. It reopens what appeared
to be the closed ending of Venus and Adonis.
Critics have looked at the thematic structure of
A Midsummer-Night's Dream from many perspectives. James L.
Calderwood and Richard Henze concentrate on the
role of the imagination in love and art as it is revealed
through the play. In contrast, D. A. Traversi, though
acknowledging the complexity of thought and action in the
play, finds that the civilized order of marriage triumphs
over the darker magic of the imagination.''* John Vyvyan
119
uncovers the Platonic elements in Shakespeare's comedy of
love, a view which is developed and modified by Charles
R. Lyons. 120
David P. Young 12' and R. A. Zimbardb 122 trace
the ultimate harmony of A Midsummer-Night's Dream to a
116~ames L. Calderwood, "A Midsummer-Night ' s Dream: The
Illusion of Drama," Modern Language Quarterly, vol. 26,
(l965), pp. 506-522.
'''laichard Henze, "A Midsummer Night' s Dream: Analogous
Image," Shakespeare Studies VII (1974), pp. 115-123.
"*D. A. Traversi, An Approach to Shakespeare, 3rd. ed.
rev. and exp. (New York: Doubleday, 1969), pp. 130-48.
John Vyvyan , Shakespeare and Platonic Beauty (London :
Chatto & Windus, 1961), chap. V, pp. 77-91.
120charles R. Lyons, Shakespeare and the Ambiguity of
Love's Triumph (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), chap. I, pp. 21-43.
121~avid P. Young, Something of Great Constancy (New
Haven: Yale Univ. Pr., 1966). Prof. Young devotes an
entire book to the study of A Midsummer-Night's Dream
in which he discusses not only the theme of discordia
concors but also the imagery, social context and folklore
background of the play.
122~. A. Zimbardo, "Regeneration and Reconciliation in A
Midsummer-Nightv s Dream, " Shakespeare Studies VI (1978) ,
pp. 35-50.
mystical union of discordia concors: "A MidsummerrNightls
Dream then is the dream of reconciliation, the concordance
of discordant parts. It is a vision of the sacred moment
objectified and held up for us to look at and to be
consoled by. Taking the philosophical background of
the play as his starting point, Richard Cody analyzes the
vision of A Midsummer-Niqht's Dream from a mythological
perspective. He finds that the figures of Venus and
Diana, Cupid, Bacchus, 'Apollo and Pan have bearing on the
mystical quality of the play's content:
How Shakespeare reconciles Diana and Venus, one
may say, is in the manner of Tasso in his
intermedia. First he poses a Protean discord in
which Diana prevails. Then he transposes it, by
way of Apollo-Bacchus, to a Panic concord in
which Venus prevails. From Phoebe to Phoebus,
from Phoebus to Bacchus, from Bacchus to Venus, is
not for a mythologer very far. Yet in another
sense it is all the way. 124
Yet another article, also in the mythological vein, attempts
to show the influence of Apuleius on the structure of the
play 12' The variety of critical approaches points out
the richness of the play's content. Each point of view, in
its own way, illuminates certain aspects of the work,
though none alone accounts for the totality of the comedy's
vision. Keeping in mind the expansive nature of A Midsununer-
124~ichard Cody, Landscapes of the Mind (Oxford : Clarendon
Pr., l969), p. 140.
125~iunes A. S. McFeek, "The Psyche Myth and A M i d ~ ~ m ~ r -
Night's Dream, Shakespeare Quarterly XXIII (1972), 69-79.
Ni ght ' s Dream, I r e t ur n t o t he t opi c a t hand, which is
Shakespeare' s use of Love mythology.
As Richard Cody poi nt s out , t he t hr ee as pect s of
t he c i r c u i t u s s p i r i t u a l i s , - emanatio; r a p t i o and
remeat i o, - a r e a l l dramatized i n A Midsummer-Night's
Dream. 126 These experi ences, we r e c a l l , des cr i be t he
means by which di vi ni t y e nt e r s t he world and i s apprehended
by mort al s. A s many c r i t i c s have recogni zed, A Midsummer-
Ni ght ' s Dream i s di vi ded i n t o f our l e ve l s of act i on. The
hi e r a r c hi c a l system i n t he pl ay shows t he mechanicals on
t he bottom, t h e l over s i n t he middle and Hippolyta and
Theseus, a s e a r t h l y r ul e r s , on t he t op. Above t he s o c i a l
s t r uc t ur e , but s t i l l beneath t he moon, i s t he f a i r y realm
governed by Ti t a ni a and Oberon. But none of t hes e l e ve l s is,
accordi ng t o Renaissance cosmology, wi t hi n t he range of
t he di vi ne. The dwel l i ng pl ace of t he gods, t he source of
a l l t he wor l d' s di vi ni t y, l i e s above t he moon. 127 I w i l l
suggest t h a t a f i f t h l e ve l of act i on i s i de nt i f i e d i n t he
126~ody, op. c i t . , p. 133. While I agr ee wi t h Richard
Cody t h a t t he s t a ge s of t he c i r c u i t u s s p i r i t u a l i s a r e
enact ed i n t he pl ay, I t hi nk it i s Eros r a t h e r t han
Bacchus, who i s r esponsi bl e f o r t he experi ence of
d i v i n i t y which t he char act er s undergo. See t he s e c t i on
on "Raptio" i n t he I nt r oduct i on.
1 2 7 ~ have drawn my knowledge of Renaissance cosmology
pr i mar i l y from C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image (Cambridge
Univ. Pr. , 19701, pa r t i c ul a r l y chap. V, "The ~ e a v e n s , "
chap. VI , "The Longaevi," and chap. V I I , "The Eart h. "
I
pl ay t hrough t he use of image. Spe c i f i c a l l y, t he presence
of t he winged god Eros who, c a l l e d t o e a r t h by sympat het i c
magic, descends through t he var i ous l e ve l s of a c t i on t o
inform t he pl ay t hroughout wi t h t he mi r acl e of love. W e
begi n wi t h a s o c i a l cons t r uct uninformed by t he presence of
Eros, a world s i mi l a r t o t he ohe des er t ed by Venus i n
Venus and Adonis. Love which br i ngs about " t he
mani f es t at i on i n man of t he g r e a t informing power which
brought t he uni ver se out of chaos and which now mai nt ai ns
it i n or der and i n concord "I2* i s seen a s t he par ent of
di scor d. The c ha ot i c condi t i on of t he opening a c t s i s
sl owl y di s pe l l e d, once t he power of Love i s brought t o
e a r t h (emanatio) through t he f i gur e of Eros. The r a p t i o
he i ns pi r e s , not wi t hst andi ng t he confusi on always pr es ent
when t h e di vi ne and t he mundane merge, cul mi nat es i n t he
vi s i on of harmony wi t h which t he pl ay ends.
The mood of t he pl ay i s, from t he very begi nni ng, a
f e s t i v e one.
time or i gi na l l y a cel ebr at i on
of t he summer s o l s t i c e . As David P. Young poi nt s out ,
129
1 2 8 ~ . S. ~ a r r i s o n , Pl at oni sm i n Engl i sh Poet r y (New York:
1903), p. 107, c l t e d by Vyvyan, op. ci t . , p. 78.
12'young, op. c i t . , pp.
t h e verv mention of t h i s hol i day i n t he t i t l e of t he
-
ay would have pl ant ed many expect at i ons i n t he minds of
an El i zabet han audi ence, not abl y t he emergence of t he
/
-
--
Fa i r i e s and Robin Goodfellow. Furthermore, when t he pl ay
/' C___
opens, we l ear n t he r e i s y e t anot her cause f o r cel ebr at i on:
. t he r oyal wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta. True t o t he
t e n e t of dramaturgy, t h a t t he expos i t i on shoul d cont ai n,
i n embryonic form, t he ending of t he pl ay, Shakespeare
opens A Midsummer--Night's Dr e a m on t he f e s t i v e not e which
w i l l cl os e t he pl ay.
But t he j oyf ul humour of t he pl a y' s opening i s no
sooner es t abl i s hed t han it is undercut by a dar ker mood.
I
The promise of ma r i t a l harmony, which Theseus pr oj e c t s i n
t he opening scene, i s marred by t h e Egeus / Hermia c onf l i c t .
We l ear n t h a t Eros i s not honoured i n t h i s world, a s might
have been expect ed from Theseus' i mpat i ent a nt i c i pa t i on of
h i s " nupt i al hour, " but i ns t ead i s s ubj e c t t o t he har sh
Athenian l a w which condemns He d a t o one of two r egi ons
which cannot admit t he winged god: deat h o r unal t er abl e
c ha s t i t y. Moreover, Hermials dilemma i s not an i s ol a t e d
i nci dent , a f or t ui t ous t w i s t of f a t e , but a condi t i on of
t he world which we have ent ered:
=. Ay me! For aught t h a t ever I coul d r ead,
Could ever hear by t a l e o r hi s t or y,
The course of t r u e l ove never di d run smooth;
(I, i, 132-4)
Following on Theseus' har sh judgement, t he l over s
r e t r e a t t o commiserate. I t i s our f i r s t i nt i mat e view
of t he qua l i t y of l ove i n t h e i r world and a s t hey voi ce
t h e i r compl ai nt s we s ee Venusv prophecy f u l f i l l e d . Love,
a s t hey des cr i be it, s t r uggl es t o br i ng chaos i n t o or der
but i s def eat ed a t a l l t ur ns :
=. But, e i t h e r it w a s d i f f e r e n t i n blood -
He r . 0 Cross! t oo hi gh t o be e nt hr a l l ' d t o low.
-
Lys. O r e l s e mi sgraffed i n r es pect of year s , -
Her. 0 s pi t e! t oo ol d t o be engag' d t o young.
-
(I, i, 135-8)
And Lysander' s s t at ement -
Lys. Or , i f t he r e were a sympathy i n choi ce,
War, deat h, o r s i cknes s di d l a y s i e ge t o it.
(I, i, 141-2)
a t t e s t s t o Venus' premonition t ha t :
' I t s h a l l be cause of w a r and d i r e event s ,
And set di s s ens i on ' t wi xt t he son and s i r e . . .
*
(Venus and Adonis, 1159-60).
Hermia and Lysander c l e a r l y t e l l us t h a t t he world we
have ent er ed i s one which cannot be informed by Eros. And,
a s i f t o r e i nf or c e t he image of t h a t world, Shakespeare
i nt r oduces Helena, i n t he same scene, lamenting y e t
\
anot her misuse of Cupid' s powers. Here i s t h e c l a s s i c
case of t he f a l s e l over and agai n t he voi ce of Venus i s
heard :
' It s h a l l be f i c k l e , f a l s e and f u l l of f r audt
(Venus and Adonis,
As t hes e images of t he f a l l e n nat ur e of l ove, gat her i ng
s t r e ngt h through repet i t i on, reach t h e i r crescendo, t he di vi ne
s i d e of Eros, h i s " l i ght , " e nt e r s t h e pl ay i n Hel ena' s
vi s i on o f ' t h e dual -nat ured Cupid:
130
H e l . Things base and v i l e , hol di ng no quant i t y,
-
Love can t r anspose t o form and di gni t y.
Love l ooks not wi t h t he eyes, but wi t h t he mind.
And t her ef or e i s wing' d Cupid pai nt ed bl i nd.
Nor hat h Love' s mind of any judgement t a s t e ;
Wings and no eyes f i gur e unheedy has t e:
And t her ef or e i s Love s a i d t o be a c hi l d,
Because i n choi ce he i s s o o f t begui l ' d.
(I, i, 232-9) . ,
The opening l i n e s , her e, fol l ow f a i r l y c l os e l y t h e Neoplatonic
t heory t ha t : ". . . t he hi ghes t myst er i es t r anscend t he
underst andi ng and must be apprehended through a st at e of
darkness ( bl i nd Cupid) i n which t he d i s t i n c t i o n s of l ogi c
vani sh. "I3' I n t h i s s t a t e , l ove can br i ng bl ack chaos
("Things base and v i l e , hol di ng no quant i t y" ) i n t o t he l i g h t
of di vi ne or der , ' gi vi ng it shape, "form and di gni t y. " The
1300n t he dual -nat ured Eros, s ee I nt r oduct i on, p. 33.
l3'I3dgar Wind, Pagan Myst eri es i n t he Renaissance (London:
Faber & Faber, 19581, p. 54.
remaining l i n e s of Hel ena' s speech des cr i be bl i nd l ove
from an e a r t hl y per s pect i ve, Arnor mundi. Thi s i s t he
god who bl i nds t he eyes of men t o t he world wi t hout
si mul t aneousl y opening them t o t he myst er i es of di vi ni t y.
Y e t t he a c t i v i t i e s of t he e a r t hl y Eros have t h e i r s har e
of c e l e s t i a l power, f o r t h i s l ove i s a r e f l e c t i on, s o t o
speak, of i t s hi gher count er par t . The two gods, Arnor d e i
and Amor mundi por t r ay, as Vyvyan poi nt s out , s t a ge s i n
t he apprehension of Love' s power:
I n he r s ol i l oquy, Helena goes on t o what seems t o
be a cont r adi ct i on, s t r e s s i ng l ove' s bl i ndness. . . .
But t he r e i s no cont r adi ct i on when we remember t h a t
Shakespearean l ove i s a pr ogr essi ve a c t i v i t y -
always t he r e ,is bl i ndness, p a r t i a l bl i ndness, and
a t l a s t c l e a r s i ght . 132
Si nce t he two as pect s of Cupid do f ol l ow, t he, one from t he
ot he r , t hey can be brought t oget her i n r econci l i at i on.
133
I n A Midsummer-Night's Dr e a m t h e two or der s of Eros, which
Helena recogni zes i n her speech, w i l l not oppose each ot he r
but r a t h e r t hey w i l l uni t e t o form t he harmony which t he
union of c ont r a r i e s i mpl i es.
Hel ena' s speech, pa r t i c ul a r l y t he l i n e s "Things base
and v i l e , hol di ng no quant i t y, / Love can t r anspose t o
form and di gni t y" - l ooks forward t o t he j oi ni ng of Ti t a ni a
"'vyvyan, op. ci t . , p. 84.
133~he phillosophy of Giordano Bruno shows an at t empt t o
r econci l e t he two s i d e s of Eros. See I nt r oduct i on,
pp. 33-34.
and Bottom, whi l e si mul t aneousl y of f e r l ng an image of
hope a t a moment i n t he pl ay when t he f ul f i l me nt of Love
seems unat t ai nabl e. However, t h i s image of Eros " t r ans l at i ng"
t he world i s des t i ned, a t t h i s poi nt , t o d i p beneat h t he
s ur f ace of t he pl ay and be hel d i n memory, l i k e a subt erranean
r i v e r , u n t i l t he time when it reappears not a s a p o s s i b i l i t y
but a s an a c t i ve f or ce. Meanwhile t h e f r u s t r a t i o n s of
l ove r e t ur n wi t h t he i nt r oduct i on of "The most l ament abl e
comedy, and most c r ue l deat h of Pyramus and Thisbe."
It i s through t he vehi cl e of "The most lamentable
comedy" (which i t s e l f i mpl i es a di s c or di a concors) t h a t
Bottom i s persuaded i n t o t he r o l e of l over , H i s "chi ef
humour" i s, however, not amorous but aggr es s i vel y mi l i t a n t a s
expressed i n t he t y r a n t ' s t a l e . I n t h i s choi ce he r e c a l l s
the war r i or p a s t of Theseus and t o some e xt e nt Adonis, who
ent er ed t h i s range i n h i s adul at i on of t he hunt er ' s r ol e.
But Bottom, who has been c a s t i n t he pl ay wi t hi n a pl ay
- "A l over , t h a t k i l l s himself most g a l l a n t l y for love"
(I, i , 26) - w i l l appear i n t he l a r ge r work a s a l over
whose scope and importance f a r s ur pas s t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s of
Pyramus and Thi sbe, and t o do t h i s he must f or sake t he
Herculean i n favour of Amor:
Bot. Thi s was l of t y! Now name t he rest of t he
-
pl ayer s. This i s Er cl es ' vei n, a t y r a n t ' s vei n;
a l over i s more condoling.
(I, ii, 42- 4)
Nor do h i s at t empt s t o c a r i c a t ur e t he feminine s i d e of
l ove
Bot. I ' l l speak i n a monstrous l i t t l e voi ce,
T h i s n e , Thisne!' 'Ah, Pyramus, my l over dear ;
t hy Thisbe dear , and l ady dear!'
(I, ii, 55-71
- o r t o out l i o n t he l i on, save him from h i s f a t e d r o l e
of Pyramus. H e i s t o pl ay t he l over and, as such,
dangerousl y e n t e r two worlds which do not admit t he power
of Eros, t he world of h i s pl ay and t he l a r ge r real m of
A Midsummer-Night 's Dream.
Throughout t hes e f i r s t scenes, t h e pl a y' s l andscape
has been di scovered a s one i n which t h e dark s i d e of l ove
t hr i ve s i n an atmosphere of chaos and t ragedy. Though
comedy has been pr es ent , t he f e s t i v e promise of t he pl a y' s
beginning has not been r eal i zed, X t would be reasonabl e, on
t he p a r t of t he audi ence, t o expect t h a t wi t h t he ent r ance
of t he Fa i r i e s , cel ebr at i on ( as t he t i t l e s ugges t s ) w i l l a t
l a s t commence. But t h i s expect at i on i s not m e t , Whatever
a i l s t he world a t . l a r g e has or i gi nat ed i n t he Fai r y world
and wi t h far-reachi ng consequences.
The Fairy world, according to C. S. Lewis, was
located in the aerial sphere of Renaissance cosmology.
134
Shakespeare's Fairies do not seem to belong exclusively
to either the earth or the air, but to partake of both
regions. This places them correctly in the aerial
universe which begins under the moon and extends down-
wards to the earth. The "spirits" who inhabit this region
defy classification: "They intrude a welcome hint of
wildness and uncertainty into a universe that is in
danger of being a little too self-explanatory, too
luminous. "135 The Fairies in A Midsumme~Night's Dream
appear to be a mglange of popular folklore and classical
mythology filtered through the playwright's imagination.
As M. W. Latham points out, the spirits
Titania have no basis in folk tradition
unique creation. 136 Titania and Oberon
who attend on
but are Shakespeare's
(though taken from
literary sources) express a kinship to the Renaissance High
Fairies in that they are not dwarflike in appearance nor
demonic by nature. As C. S. Lewis remarks, Oberon assures
us that he is a spirit of "another sort," differentiating
himself from theudamned spirits" who "willfully themselves
S. Lewis, op. cit., pp.
136~. W. Latham, The Elizabethan Fairies (New York: Columbia
Univ. Pr., 1930), chap. V, "The E'airges of Shakespeare,"
pp. fi6-218.
exile from light."
137
High Fairies, such as Shakespeare's Oberon, occupying
the middle ground, could serve as intermediaries between
the aethereal, divine universe above the moon and the
region of the earth. They were thought to be ". . . of
a middle nature between man and Angel, as were Daemons
thought to be of old. Moreover, certain types of
Fairies were closely associated with the elements. Titania
appears to be one of ". . . those spirits which according
to the principle of plenitude, existed in every element.
,1139
- r
Though Titania's name suggests that she is a manifestation
of Diana, she does not consistently behave in the manner
of Ovid's chaste goddess. Moreover, being a fairy and
inhabiting the aerial realm, she could not express the
total nature of the goddess. But while she, herself, is
not Diana, she appears to be an agent through whom the gods
manifest themselves, and she, in her turn, transports their
137~enis, op. cit., p. 138.
138~obert Kirk, Secret Commonwealth (1961), cited by C. S.
~ewis, op. cit., p. 135.
139~ewis, op. cit., p. 134. Lewis takes this information
from Ficino, Theologia Platonica de Immortalitate. On
the role of Fairies and Daemons as intermediaries in
Shakespeare, see Robert H. West, Shakespeare & the Outer
Mystery (Lexington: Univ. of Kentucky Pr:, 1968), chap.
VI; W. C. Curry, Shakespeare's Philosophical Patterns
(Louisiana State Univ. Pr., 1937, 1959).
images i n t o t he world of t he pl ay.
With t he appearance of t he Fa i r i e s , t he world of t he
pl ay ext ends t o i ncl ude t he semi-divine. But what should
be a j oyf ul addi t i on t o t he drama, t ur ns around on i t s e l f
and exposes t he da r ke s t vi s i on of chaos which t he pl ay has,
up t o t h i s moment, proposed. The storm of event s exposing
t h e misinformed dark s i de of l ove, which operat ed throughout
A c t I, reaches i t s s t r onges t dimension as t he source of
confusi on i n t he Fai r y world i s reveal ed.
The c o n f l i c t between Ti t ani a and Oberon cent er s around
t he guardi anshi p ---.- -- . -- __- - of - t he changeling boy. Oberon, Puck t e l l s
L -
-
us, ". . . would have t he c hi l d / Knight of h i s t r a i n , t o
t r a c e t he f o r e s t s w i l d " (11, i, 2 4 - S) , whi l e ~ i t a n i a ,
r ef us i ng t o s ur r ender him, "Crowns him wi t h fl owers, and
makes him a l l her joy." (11 i, 27) . The theme i s a
f a mi l i a r one. I n Venus and Adonis, Adonis enact ed t he r ol e
of t he I ndi an boy by r ef us i ng t he e r o t i c world, wi t h t r a g i c
r e s u l t s . I n A Midsummer-Niqht's Dream, however, &&
changel i ng boy remains i n t he background, whi l e t he quest i on
-
a s t o which world has t he predominant cl ai m upon h i m i s
-.c
fought i n t he foreground between t he King and Queen of t he
g a i r i e s . The peacef ul s et t l ement of t h i s argument i s, of
- - - - - - * - ---..." * ~ .-- ,-.-... +.------ -
course, c e n t r a l t o t he pl ay. Such a s et t l ement w i l l event ual l y
come about by t he s ubs t i t ut i on of Bottom f o r t he chanqzl i ng
\
- _ . -
boy. The consequent Ti t a ni a w i l l
-
-- -
-
\ \
admit t he power of Aphrodite, deni ed i n Venus and Adonis,
* - - - - - - --
. _. , ---.r-.
i n t o t he world of A Midsummer-Niqht's Dream. But I w i l l
-- -
r e t ur n t o t h i s problem a t a l a t e r poi nt i n t he essay. For
t he moment it i s enough t o recogni ze t h a t t he feud between
t he masculine and feminine cl ai ms t o t he world l i e s a t t he
--- -- -- -_ - .- - - -
-_ __ I _ _ _ ." _ _ " _ _. ".. "..-....~---------..I--." -
cor e of t he confusi on i n Fai ryl and.
-
------ ".-.--- "--
Unt i l t h i s feud i s resol ved, t he world of t he pl ay
w i l l not be a bl e t o admit Eros, and w i l l remain, chafi ng a s
it i s, unde r - t he i nf l uence of t he vi r gi n Diana. From her
f i r s t appearance i n Theseus' opening l i n e s -
F
<
The.
-
but O! methinks how slow
Thi s ol d moon wanes; she l i nge r s my de s i r e s ,
Like t o a step-dame, o r a dowager
Long wi t her i ng out a young man's revenue.
(I, i, 3-61
which has set t he pl a y' s t enor , t he Moon Goddesst hol d
over t he movement of t he drama has appeared agai n and agai n,
forming a l e i t mot i f i n A c t I. The metamorphosis of Diana
-
i n t o Aphrodite, which i s her haturaLL movement and one
t h a t has been a nt i c i pa t e d from t he pl a y' s begi nni ng, has
been f r u s t r a t e d a t every t ur n and has come t o a s t a n d s t i l l
i n t he c o n f l i c t between Oberon and Ti t ani a. The i n s u l t s t hey
h u r l a t each ot he r i n t h e i r f i r s t angry encount er expr es s
t h i s c o n f l i c t f ul l y:
Ti t a . - What! j eal ous Oberon. Fa i r i e s , s ki p
hence ;
I have foresworn h i s bed and company.
Ti t a ni a , under t he i nf l uence of t he moonlight, has
donned t he f a c e of Diana and r e t r e a t e d i n t o a c e l i b a t e
world. Oberon at t empt s t o expose t he f a l s i t y of her
vi r gi n mask by c a l l i n g her "r as h wanton!" and by as s i gni ng
t o her t he r o l e of t he t empt ress who l eads Theseus through
l
a maze of l over s :
Obe. Di dst thou not l ead him through t he glimmer-
1
i ng ni ght
From Perigouna, whom he ravi shed?
And make him wi t h f a i r Aeqle break h i s f a i t h ,
7
With Ariadne, and Antiopa?
(II, i, 77-80)
but t o no a va i l . Di ana' s angry hol d over t he world remains
supreme.
The "el ement al s p i r i t t t as pect of Ti t ani a i s f u l l y
r e a l i z e d i n her angry r e t o r t t o Oberan.
It i s she who
re-enact s t he a e t he r e a l dance of t he stars i n t h e mutable
world of t he Fa i r i e s , consequent l y t r ans mi t t i ng t h e i r
c e l e s t i a l movements t o t he e a r t h i t s e l f . But he r r o l e
a s di vi ne medium cannot succeed i f he r dance i s obs t r uct ed
by s t r i f e . Oberonvs j eal ous de s i r e f o r t he changel i ng
c h i l d has prompted Ti t ani a t o f or s ake Aphrodite i n favour
of Diana. Thi s move has r e s ul t e d i n t he consequent
col l aps e of t he wor l d' s el ement al harmony, f o r l ove (Eros)
i s t he power by which t he di vi ne spher es c r e a t e t h e i r dance.
I n Ti t a n i a v s magni fi cent c e n t r a l speech, i n which t he
col l aps e of el ement al harmony and i t s consequent upheaval
of t he seasonsr r i g h t cycl e i s di s cl os ed, t he dark s i de
of Diana reaches i t s f u l l e s t mani f est at i on:
Ti t a . - Therefore t he moon, t he governess of f l oods ,
Pal e i n he r anger, washes a l l t h e a i r ,
That rheumatic di s eas es do abound
( I T , i, 103-5)
Di ana' s wrat h i s t he penal t y t h a t t he world of A Midsummer-
Ni ght ' s Dream pays f o r i t s r e f us a l t o admit t he l i g h t of
Eros.
Oberon c l e a r l y names t he manner by which t he s t agnat i ng
moon may be t ransformed i n t o t he l i f e- gi vi ng nat ur e of
Aphrodite when he s ays t o Ti t ani a:
Obe. Do yousamend it! it l i es i n you.
-
Why shoul d Ti t a ni a cr os s her Oberon?
I do but beg a l i t t l e changel i ng boy,
To be my henchman.
Thei r argument has come f u l l cycl e; t he di s cor d between
them shows no evi dence of waning. Oberon wants t o claim
t he changel i ng boy f o r h i s world, whi l e Ti t ani a i s equal l y
adamant i n her r e f us a l t o sur r ender him. The r e s u l t i s
t h a t t he masculine, a s it i s hel d i n Oberonls d e s i r e t o
have t he boy - ''Knight of h i s t r a i n , t o t r a c e t he f or e s t s
wi l d " - and t he feminine, a s it, i n t ur n, f i nds i t s
own expressi on i n Ti t a ni a ' s mat ernal possessi veness, have
pol ar i zed. I n t he extreme s t ance which each has t aken,
t he r e remains no room f o r t he presence of Eros, a presence
which would, gi ven ent r ance, uni t e them i n a concordant
di scor d.
The cl os i ng of t he qua r r e l scene between Oberon and
- -..- ...-. "
- - . . - -
Ti t a ni a her al ds a major t ur ni ng poi nt i n t he pl ay. The
-ml .-I"
---rx^ >.-- ^"--., " -.-.^*-
-- -- -_-I_"
storm of f r u s t r a t i o n which has been gat her i ng throughout
4 ---
.------ * -
reaches i t s f i n a l e i n t he cl osed c i r c u l a r argument between
- a--. -- ,- - " -" --- ----" ---- .----- - . - - .**,,-
t he King and Queen of Fai ryl and. r Nothing i n t h e pl ay can
move forward u n t i l t h i s locked c i r c l e i s broken. The
--
p o s s i b i l i t i e s of a c t i on which t he drama has suggest ed, up
t o t h i s poi nt , can cont i nue- onl y i n a t r a g i c di r ect i on. A
new i ngr edi ent must e nt e r t he world of t he pl ay i n or der t o
break up t he s t a s i s which has a s t r angl ehol d
on any
f ur t he r movement.. The "new i ngr edi ent " which i s requi red
i s " ~ r o s , " and it i s Oberon who becomes t he agent through
whom t he winged god gai ns ent r ance i n t o A Midsummer-Night's
'Dream.
Oberon' s vi s i on of t he mermaid s i ngi ng t he harmony
of spheres whi l e s eat ed on a dol phi n' s back, has been t he
s ubj e c t of much c r i t i c a l commentary.
140
Obe. My ge nt l e Puck, come hi t he r . Thou remember' st
S i n c e once I s a t upon a promontory,
And heard a mermaid on a dol phi n' s back
Ut t er i ng such dul c e t and harmonious br eat h,
That t he rude sea grew c i v i l a t her song,
And c e r t a i n s t a r s s hot madly from t h e i r spheres
To hear t he sea-maid' s music.
Whatever e l s e i t may symbolize, Oberon' s vi s i on cont ai ns
a mermaid r i di ng on a dol phi n' s back whose power of song
i s abl e t o calm t h e s eas and cause t he di vi ne s t a r s t o
l eave t h e i r f i xed course. H e r a b i l i t y t o make t he "rude
sea" c i v i l shows t h a t she does not belong t o t h e t r a d i t i o n
l 4 O ~ . H. Furness, A New Variorum Edi t i on of Shakespeare:
A ids summer-~ight's Dream (New York: Dover Pub., 1 9 n ) .
Prof. Furness provi des 17 pages of not es on Oberon' s
speech, most of which de a l wi t h t he p o l i t i c a l al l egor y
which t he l i n e s suggest . James A. S. McPeek wr i t es :
"It seems gener al l y accept ed t h a t Shakespeare may have
remembered her e i mpressi ons, however der i ved, from t he
ent er t ai nment s f o r El i zabet h a t Kenilworth (1575) and
Elvethan (15911, s pect acl es t h a t pr esent ed s i ngi ng
mermaids, dol phi ns, Tr i t ons , fi reworks (shoot i ng s t a r s )
and s p e l l s supposedly calming t h e seas. " He ar gues,
however, t h a t anot her pos s i bl e source can be found i n
Apul ei usq The Golden As s . McPeek, l oc. c i t . , pp. 73-4.
of s i r e n s who l u r e man t o shipwreck and deat h by sweet
s i ngi ng, but i s a d i f f e r e n t or der of s p i r i t u s . 14'
On t he
ot he r hand, she ups et s uni ver s al or der , a s nat ur e di d i n
Venus and Adonis, by causi ng t he s t a r s t o shoot "madly
from t h e i r spheres. " Thi s l a s t image suggest s t h a t ,
r i g h t l y o r wrongly, c e r t a i n di vi ne i nf l uences a r e , through
t he enchant i ng song of t he s i r e n , brought from t he
heavens above t he moon t o t he ear t h.
The capt ur i ng of d i v i n i t y by t h i s means h i n t s a t
t he Fi ci ni an doc t r i ne of na t ur a l magic by which t h e
i n i t i a t e st r engt hened h i s communion wi t h God by focusi ng
h i s a t t e n t i o n on an image of t he di vi ne, s o t h a t "The s p i r i t u s
which i s t he channel f o r t he i nf l uences of t he s t a r s has
been caught and s t or e d i n t he magic talisman.!' But
s i g h t was not t he onl y sense which might be used i n t h i s
141pl at o gave t he s i r e n s a pl ace a s s i nge r s of t h e spheres:
"The Spi ndl e t urned on t he knees of Necessi t y. Upon
each of i t s circles st ood a Si r en, who was c a r r i e d round
wi t h i t s movement, ut t e r i ng a s i ngl e sound on one not e,
s o t h a t a l l t he e i g h t made up t he concords of a s i ngl e
s cal e. " The Republic of Pl a t o, t r ans . Fr anci s M. Cornford
(London: Oxford Univ. Pr. , 1945, 1964) , p. 355. ~ b e r o n ' s
mermaid, who u t t e r s "dul cet and harmonious br eat h, " may
belong i n some measure t o t he Pl at oni c t r a di t i on. For a
more de t a i l e d cons i der at i on of t h e Pl at oni c s i r e n i n
l i t e r a t u r e , s ee Jane E. Harri son, Prolegomena t o t he Study
of Greek Religi' on (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr . , 1908) ,
"The K e r - a s Si r en, " pp. 197f f . , esp. p. 205.
142~r a nc e s Yates, Giordano Bruno and t he Hermetic Tr adi t i on,
(New York: Vi nt age, 1969), chap. I V , " Fi ci no' s Nat ural
Magic," p. 77.
manner. Song, pa r t i c ul a r l y Orphic Song, coul d be employed
a s anot her means of ent er i ng t he di vi ne. Oberonts vi s i on
combines bot h t he vi s ua l t al i sman and o r a l i ncant at i on
i n t he form of t he s i ngi ng mermaid image.
By pl a c i ns t he mermaid on a dol phi n' s back, Shakespeare
d
i ve s t o h i s image t he powers of r escue which were as s oci at ed
wi t h t he dol phi n, an animal well-known - f o r savi nq drowning
s a i l or s . I n an Al ci at us emblem of 1581, t he myth of Ar h n
-
rescued by t he dol phi n i s r epr esent ed. We see Arion
thrown overboard and si mul t aneousl y heading s a f e l y f o r land
whi l e pl ayi ng h i s har p on t he back of t he dol phi n who is
savi ng him. The emblem may have suggest ed Shakespeare' s
s i ngi ng s i r e n r i di ng t he back of t he dol phi n. I t i s
f i t t i n g , a t any r a t e , t h a t an image which w i l l , i n a sense,
"rescue" t he pl ay and calm t he t urbul ence shoul d cont ai n
t he symbol of t he dol phi n.
Up t o t h i s poi nt , Puck and Oberon have shared t he
same r ecol l ect i on. When quest i oned by t he Fai r y King,
Puck i s a bl e t o r e c a l l t he s i ngi ng mermaid: "I remember
-
( 1 i f 154) . They di d not , however, s har e t he secret of
Cupid' s appearance. Oberon has hel d back t h i s knowledge
143~enr y Green, Shakespeare and t he Emblem Wr i t er s (New
York, Burt Fr ankl i n, c1869), p. 280.
and t s onl y now ready t o reveal h i s t o t q l vi s i on t o Puck;
Obe. That very t i m e I saw, But thou coul ds t
-
not ,
Fl yi ng between t he col d moon and t h e e qr t h,
Cupid a l l arm' d
By s t a t i n g a v i s i b i l i t y t h a t Puck coul d not see,
Oberon
reminds us of h i s s t a t u r e a s a High Fai r y. H e has been
a bl e t o s ee Eros charmed by t he s i r e n e n t e r t he aer i al
world ("between t he col d moon and t h e eart h1' ) whi l e Puck,
who bel ongs t o a lower or der of Fai r y ( t he pr ankst er 2, has
been bar r ed t h i s vi s i on. The appearance of Eros, who is
t he onl y f or c e hi gher t han 0beron i n t h e pl ay, adds a
I
f i f t h l e ve l i n t he play. ' s hi e r a r c hi c a l s t r uc t ur e . I t
marks t h e ent r ance of c e l e s t i a l l ove i n t o t h e world of
A Midsummer-Night's Dream, heral ded by t h e shoot i ng s t a r s
\
which descended t o hear t he mermaid' s song. But Eros does
not s t a y, as Oberon f i r s t s ees him, a v i s i t i n g god i n t he
a e r i a l uni ver se. Di spl ayi ng h i s dual nat ur e (he i s not
onl y Amor d e i but a l s o Amor mundi), he draws h i s bow and
shoot s t he power of l ove down t o t he e a r t h. Oberon, al one
-
of t he c ha r a c t e r s i n t he pl ay, wi t nesses t h i s occurrence,
/
.
-
i s a c r e a t ur e of t he a e r i a l uni verse. The r a p t i o
of Eros i s t hus a t h i s di s pos al .
The t gl i ght l g of Eros has mani fest ed itselfi i n "a
l i t t l e west ern fl ower, " ( I T , i, 166). 1-ts col our i ng
- "Before, milk-white; now pur pl e wi t h l ove ' s wound "
1 1 i, 1 6 - r e c a l l s t he metamorphosis of Adonis:
A pur pl e fl ower sprung up, chequer' d wi t h whi t e;
Resembling w e l l h i s pa l e cheeks, and t he blood
Which i n round drops upon t h e i r whi t eness st ood.
(Venus and Adonis, 1168-70)
and suggest s t h a t t he fl ower i t s e l f i s i n a s t a t e of
t r ansf or mat i on, f o r t he pl a nt t h a t appeared as a r educt i ve
image of Adonis, i n veget at i on form i n t he poem, has
become, i n t h e pl ay, t he agent t hrough which l ove w i l l
inform t he world. The maidens c a l l t h i s new fl ower "Love
i n i dl enes s " (11, i, 1681, an accur at e name f o r a fl ower
which cont ai ns t h e di vi ni t y of Eros, but which has , i ndeed,
l a i n l ' i dl e, " unused t hus f a r by t he world of t he pl ay.
The f l ower ' s capaci t y t o ". . . make man o r woman
madly dot e / Upon t he next l i v e c r e a t ur e t h a t it s e e s . T'
(11, i, 171121, r e c a l l s t he image of bl i nd Cupid mentioned
e a r l i e r by Helena. Oberon i gnor es t h e di vi ne s i d e of Eros
which can t r a n s l a t e "Things base and
di gni t y" and concent r at es i ns t ead on
of Cupi d' s bl i ndness. Though Oberon
"Loven e n t e r s t he pl ay, he i s, a s he
.
v i l e v t o "form and
t he negat i ve as pect s
i s a medium by which
shows by h i s s e l f i s h
underst andi ng of t h e god, a l i mi t ed agent . By c a l l i n g up
t he lower form of bl i nd Eros a t t he expense of h i s hi gher ,
Oberon makes himself d i r e c t l y r esponsi bl e f o r t he confusi on
amongst t he l over s , which grows out of t h i s scene. The
god, which he has i nt roduced t o t he world f o r hLs own
purposes, w i l l remain t rapped on t he e ye l i ds of t h e
char act er s , causi ng bl i ndness, and, by ext ensi on, on t he
s ur f ace of t h e pl ay, u n t i l such t i m e as h i s rltes a r e enact ed
i n t he union of Ti t a ni a and Bottom.
The "l ove j ui ce" which i s t o be pl aced on t he e ye l i ds
of Ti t a ni a i s, a s descr i bed by Oberon, an i nver s i on of t h e
e r o t i c powers of t he god. Eros, who has been def i ned a s
". . . t he pr i nc i pl e not onl y of Li f e but of Li ght . . .
Li ght pursui ng and penet r at i ng darkness, . . . i s her e
c a s t a s t he agent by which darkness, a s it i s hel d i n
"Blind Cupid," w i l l overpower t he world of t he pl ay.
On t he
obvious l e ve l Oberon i nt ends t o use t h i s bl i ndnes s t o defraud
Ti t a ni a of her Indi an boy. But t he means t o t h i s end bet r ay
t he i nver t ed nat ur e of t he god:
Obe. The next t hi ng t hen she, waking, l ooks upon -
-
Be it on l i on, bear , o r wol f, o r b u l l ,
01 meddling .monkey o r on busy ape -
She s h a l l pursue it wi t h t he s oul of l ove.
? 4 4 ~ a r r i s o n , op. c i t . , p. 645.
The god Eros, who hol ds t he power t o t ransform " be s t i a l "
as pect s of mankind t o a hi gher or der , w i l l , under di r e c t i on
from Oberon, ensl ave semi-divine Ti t a ni a t o one of a
number of "beas t s " which roam a pr e- er ot i c and consequent l y
chaot i c world. Moreover, t he pot e nt i a l t r agedy of t he pl a y' s
vi s i on, which has cont i nual l y l urked beneat h t he dramat s
s ur f ace, reappears wi t h t he vi s i on of t he Fai r y Queen
maddened by Bl i nd Love pursui ng " l i on, bear , o r wol f, o r
bul l . " Thi s image darkens f ur t he r st i l l i f one r e c a l l s
Adonis' t r a g i c pur s ui t of t he wi l d boar. But t he l a t e n t
danger of Oberon' s scheme i s tempered by h i s st at ement
- I
t h a t Ti t a ni a ' s weapon i n her bl i nded condi t i on w i l l be
"t he s oul of 10ve.' ~' Contrary t o t he not i on t h a t t hose who
a r e hel d i n t he g r i p of Bl i nd Love a r e guided by pas s i on
- " Pai nt er s cover h i s eyes wi t h a bandage t o emphasize t he
f a c t t h a t people i n l ove do not know where t hey dr i ve ,
bei ng wi t hout judgement o r di s cr i mi nat i on and guided by
mere passi on "145 - Ti t a ni a w i l l be l ed t hrough her descent.
by t he s oul of l ove i t s e l f . Thus, whi l e c a l l i n g up t he
dar ker powers of Eros, r a t h e r t han h i s vi s i onar y f a c u l t i e s ,
Oberon a l s o suggest s a way by which t he opposi t e metamorphosis
(darkness i n t o l i g h t ) may t ake pl ace,
145~r wi n Panof sky, St udi es i n Iconology (London : Ox ord
Univ. Pr. , 1939, 1967), p. 108.
I t i s, i ndeed, necessary f o r Eros t o e nt e r t he world
of t he pl ay i n h i s i nver t ed form. We know from t he act i on
of t he f i r s t a c t t h a t t he s oc i e t y of A Midsuinmer-Night's
Dream i s not capabl e of embracing h i s t o t a l di vi ni t y. The
l i mi t a t i ons of t h a t s o c i a l s t r uc t ur e must f i r s t be s ha t t e r e d
bef or e a new or der , i n which l ove i s a bl e t o t hr i ve , can
emerge. Eros must descend i n or der t o inform. The t o o l s
by which such a metamorphosis can be accomplished a r e t he
inversims of l i g h t i n t o darkness, cornkc i n t o t r a g i c and
l i f e i n t o deat h. By t ur ni ng t he world upsi de down and
---- _ _Ill_ -.l-..----lI_." _ _
wei ght i ng i t s bal ance towards t he negat i ve, t he pot e nt i a l
- . .-__
" _ ____" . _I - - -- . - --
presence of t r a g i c darkness, which has hovered under t h e
#__ __._.._ _ __^. - - - --
pl ay from t he begi nni ng , w i l l s ur f ace and be expl ored
- --- I. I - ---. -.- . --- ----I. --"-I ..I-"".- - ^ _ _ _
and t he r e s u l t s of t h i s expl or at i on w i l l be pur gat i ve*
-I .- ._--- _ . _. .-
- "-- .---
The i nver s i on of t he world which i s i nt roduced i n
Oberonls mani pul at i on of Ti t a ni a i s reproduced i n t he
scene d i r e c t l y fol l owi ng h i s speech, when t he l over s
Helena and Demetrius r e- ent er t he pl ay. Thei r scene begi ns
t h e l ong descent i n t o confusi on which w i l l occupy t he
q u a r t e t of l over s f o r t he next two a c t s . 146 A l l t he elements
146~i c ha r d Cody wr i t es : "The young l over s , and Ti t a ni a and
Bottom, do not a c t ua l l y dream a t a l l , even i n t he s t or y.
They s u f f e r a t r i c k of Cupid, an e r o t i c t r a ns f i gur a t i on
i n t he garden of Diana, a pa s t or a l r apt i o. " op. c i t . , p. 1 4 2 .
of the chth0ni.c world a r e pr esent . Amor, which should
de l i ght , has become t he i nst rument of torment.
The r i g h t
or der of l ove has been r ever sed, a s i n Ti t a ni a ' s cas e,
pl aci ng Helena i n t he r ol e of pursuer
H e l .
-
The s t or y s h a l l be changed:
Apollo f l i e s , and Daphne hol ds t he chase;
The dove pursues t h e g r i f f i n ; t he mild hi nd
Makes speed t o cat ch t he t i g e r - boot l es s speed,
When cowardice pur sues, t hen val our f l e e s .
- and even t h i s pur s ui t , which hol ds much comic pot e nt i a l ,
i s darkened by t h e t h r e a t of per sonal vi ol ence a ga i ns t
her:
Dem. - You do impeach your modesty t oo much,
To l eave t he c i t y , and commit your s el f
I n t o t he hands of one t h a t l oves you not ;
And t he ill counsel of a de s e r t pl ace
With t h e r i c h worth of your v i r g i n i t y ,
The t r ansf or mat i ons of " l i ght " l ove t o "dark" hat e
grow t hroughout t h i s scene u n t i l t he submission of t he
comic vi s i on t o t h e t r a g i c reaches i t s climax when, i n
Hel ena' s pa r t i ng l i ne s , we s ee t h a t t he deat h as pect s of
Love have overpowered i t s l i f e- gener at i ng f or ces :
He l . - 1'11 f ol l ow t hee and make a heaven of h e l l ,
To d i e upon t he hand I l ove s o wel l .
- (11, i, 243- 44)
The Helena / Demetrius scene foreshadows, i n
microcosmic form, t he descent of a l l f our l over s i n t o a
c ha ot i c world. Joi ned by Hermia and Lysander, Helena
and Demetrius wi l l cont i nue t o enact the i nver s i on of
Love, and by ext ensi on of t h e i r world, u n t i l such t i m e
as t hey are del i ver ed i n t o t he cust ody of s l e e p by a
sympat het i c Oberon.
"Li ght N Love w i l l metamorphose i n t o "dark" hat e as
Lysander, bl i nded by Oberon' s ' ' love j ui ce, ' ' renounces h i s
passi on f o r H e r mi a : "Thy love! out , tawny Ta r t a r , out!
- c
Out, l oat hed medicine! hat ed poi son, hence!" (111, ii,
264-5) - and t h i h theme w i l l be f ur t he r expl ored i n
t h e breakdown of t he f r i ends hi p between Helena and Hermia.
Furthermore, t h e Triumph of Death over Li f e , foreshadowed
i n t he Helena / Demetrius scene, w i l l emerge a s a pos s i bl e
s ol ut i on a s t he confused l over s c a l l upon i t s ominous
powers wi t h i ncr eas i ng frequency. An example can be found
i n Hermia' s l i ne s :
He r . No! t hen I w e l l per cei ve you a r e not high:
T t h e r deat h o r you 1'11 f i nd immediately.
(11, ii, 155-6)
Thi s p o s s i b i l i t y of t r agedy, a s it is hel d i n Death,
w i l l f i n a l l y reach i t s f u l l e s t expr essi on and consequent
r es ol ut i on when t he l over s engage i n a mock-battle (111, iil
I
under t he guidance of Oberon.
But whi l e t h e l over s a r e expl or i ng t he cht honi c as pect s
of t h e i r i nver t ed world, t he pos i t i ve s i d e of Eros, t he
"soul of l ove, " i s sl owl y r eveal i ng, i n t he Fai r y realm,
t he manner by which t he world of t h e pl ay w i l l f i n a l l y be
r es t or ed t o r i g h t or der . It is, however, necessar y or
t he Fai r y world t o e nt e r t he same cht honi c condi t i on a s
t h a t of t he l over s , bef or e Eros can expose h i s "light1'
through t he union of Bottom and Ti t ani a.
The ent r ance of t he dark god i n t o Fai r yl and i s f u l l y
a r t i c u l a t e d by Oberon a s he l ays t he s p e l l of "Bl i nd
Cupid" over t he s l eepi ng Ti t ani a:
Obe. What t hou seest when thou dos t wqke,
-
Do it f o r t hy t rue-l ove t ake;
Love and l angui sh f o r h i s sake:
Be it ounce, o r cat , o r bear ,
Pard, o r boar wi t h b r i s t l e d h a i r ,
I n t hy eye t h a t s h a l l appear
When t hou wak' st , it i s t hy dear!
Wake when some v i l e t hi ng i s near.
(11, ii, 27-34)
Oberont s r e c i t a l of t h i s ominous charm, whi l e Ti t a ni a
l i e s " Lul l Fd i n t hes e fl owers wi t h dances and d e l i g h t
(11, i, 2541, suggest s a r e l a t i ons hi p t o t he Persephone
myth, f o r Ti t a ni a , l i k e t he kidnapped Kore, w i l l be t he
victEm of a cht honi c god ( t he Underworld Eros) and, as such,
w i l l
descend t o t he very "Bottomw of t he pl a y' s world.
.
Bottom, i n h i s r o l e a s t he dual l over of Thisbe and
of Ti t ani a, enact s on a microcosmic l e v e l t he e n t i r e
s t agnat i on, descent and as cent of t he pl a y' s dramat i c
act i on. Obl i vi ous t o Oberon' s p l o t and t o t he confusi ons
of t he l over s , he r e- ent er s t he pl a y Pn Act T I T , mi r r or i ng
t he r educt i ve a t t i t u d e s t h a t pervade Act I, With t he
a ut hor i t y of a Theseus subj ugat i ng t he laws of Eros t o
t hose of Athens, Bottom proposes t h a t t he world ofi*%he-.
-
-_I_, --
i magi nat i on be sabotaged by reduci ng it t o " r e a l i t y" :
/---.."
-
Bot. - W r i t e me a prologue; and let t he prol ogue
seem t o say, we w i l l do no harm wi t h our swords,
and t h a t Pyramus i s not k i l l e d indeed; and, f o r
t he more b e t t e r assurance, t e l l them t h a t I ,
Pyramus, am not Pyramus, but Bottom t he weaver:
t h i s w i l l put them out of f ear .
Bottom pays -- f o r t h i s de ni a l of t he i magi nat i on when he
-----_._
i s t r a ns l a t e d i n t o an ass - by an i r r i t a t e d - Puck. I n h i s
new s t a t e he i s no l onger a bl e t o say, wi t h c e r t a i nt y,
t h a t he i s "Bottom t he weaver." H e has, through t h e
metamorphosis, ent er ed a range of pa r t i c i pa t i on which i s
s i mi l a r t o t he l over s ' confusi on. However, though he
has "descended" i n t o t he gui s e of an a s s , Bottom does not ,
a s t he l over s do,' c a l l upon deat h a s a pos s i bl e means of
escape. I ns t ead he chooses song, a song about bi r ds who
are c r e a t u r e s o f t h e a i r r a t h e r t han t h e underworl d 147 (.in
c o n t r a s t wi t h t h e r epeat ed snake i magery of the l ove r s '
worl d
148)
Tf we r e c a l l t h a t it was by song t h a t t h e Si r e n
l ur e d Er os i n t o t h e a e r i a l worl d, and al so t h a t song pl ayed
a n i mpor t ant r o l e i n t h e Orphi c mys t er i es as a means by
wh,ich t h e di vi ne coul d be apprehended, Ti t a n i a t s openi ng
l i n e - Wha t angel wakes me from my f l ower y bed?" CI I T , i,
122) - es capes t h e char ge t h a t it is merely comic and,
whi l e r e t a i n i n g i t s comic a s pe c t s , pr oposes t h a t a hi gher
or de r of ~ r o s ' i s about t o e nt e r .
By y e t anot her i nve r s i on, Ti t a ni a t r ans f or ms t h e
- -
" beas t , I' wi t h whom she i s t o u n i t e , i n t o an "angel " (.III,
---- -- -___ _- _ . - - ---a-
i, 122) . H e r "bl i ndnes s , " f ar from bei ng a l i mi t i n g f a c t o r ,
- -
- -, -"--.--
,---' ----- -
allows h e r t o metamorphose Bottom from one of t h e l o wl i e s t
147~ot t om' s t r ans f or mat i on i s, as Ri chard Cody p o i n t s out ,
bot h l u c i d and hol y: "Encomia of t h e ass as ' bot h absur d
-
i n es s ence and t h e c a r r i e r of di vi ne mys t e r i e s t were t oo
w e l l known by t h e 1590s t o escape i mpl i c a t i on i n such
s cenes as t he s e of Bottom and t h e Fa i r y Queen. And l i k e
ever y o t h e r f i g u r e i n t h e pl ay, B o t t o m t r a n s l a t e d means
r ever ence as w e l l as l aught er , myst ery a s w e l l a s humour,
wisdom as w e l l as f ol l y. " Cody, op. ci t . , p. 138.
1480n t h e s e r pe nt i magery which sur r ounds t h e l ove r s , see
McPeek, l oc. ci t . , p. 71. The pr esence of s e r pe nt s shows
us a f a l l e n worl d i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e s e r p e n t l e s s par adi s e
which Venus i nha bi t e d i n Venus and Adonis.
darkness t h a t she has ent er ed under Oberont s s p e l l i s of
t he or der which t r anscends i t s e l f , c r e a t i ng vi s i on out
of chaos. By l ovi ng Bottom wi t h " t he s oul of love" t h a t
i s normally r eser ved f o r adul at i on of t he gods t hemsel ves,
Ti t a ni a enact s t he worship of Eros i n h i s f u l l d i v i n i t y and
consequent l y proposes f o r t he pl ay a method by which t he
dark god may be transformed.
,f'
,/ The Fai r y Queen' s "bl i ndness" t o Bottom' s gr os s
f e a t ur e s r e c a l l s Helena' s speech -
Hel. Things base and v i l e , hol di ng no quant i t y,
Love can t r anspose t o form and di gni t y,
\
\- (I, i, 232-3)
Moreover, Ti t a ni a l ooks a t Bottom, ''. . . not wi t h t he
eyes, but wi t h t h e mind" (I, i, 234), and it i s a mind
at t uned t o d i v i n i t y as she r e c a l l s t h e Fi ci ni an doct r i ne
of na t ur a l magic by usi ng t he vehi cl es of song:
Ti t a. I pray t hee, ge nt l e mor t al , s i ng agai n:
Mine eye i s much enamour'd of
t hy not e
and image:
Ti t a. So i s mine e a r e nt hr a l l e d t o t hy shape
-
(111, i, 146)
- t o achi eve an experi ence of t he "angel " which she bel i eves
Bottom ko be, and which w i l l al l ow he r I t . . , t o swear, I l ove
t hee I' (111, i, 148) .
Bottom bet r ays h i s i gnorance of t h e hi gh s t a t i o n
which Ti t a ni a has gi ven him when he r e p l i e s t o he r
de c l a r a t i on of l ove wi t h: "Methinks, mistress, you shoul d
have l i t t l e reason f o r t h a t " (111, i, 135). H i s st at ement
r i ngs t r u e if one looks s ol e l y wi t h t he eyes. However,
Ti t a ni a i s possessed a t t he moment when she "l oves" Bottom
by a di vi ne vi s i on which t r anscends t h e l i , m~t at i onsSSof
------- /_ I.+
--- -I_..- -- ---
reason. Thus Bottom' s st at ement
/--- -
Bot. - And ye t , t o s ay t he t r u t h , reason and l ove
keep l i t t l e company t oget her nowadays - t h e
more t he p i t y t h a t some honest neighbours w i l l
not make them f r i ends .
+trays h i s i n a b i l i t y t o comprehend t he mystery i n
\
/ which he i s a pa r t i c i pa nt , whi l e coi nci dent al l y showing
\
him a s an emi nent l y s ui t a bl e candi dat e f o r t h a t mystery.
--.-
H i s very l ack of underst andi ng i s r e q u i s i t e f o r t h e
enactment of a mystery which cannot be apprehended by
reason. Bottom himself w i l l come t o t h i s r e a l i z a t i o n when
he des cr i bes h i s experi ences a s ". . . a dream p a s t t he
w i t of man t o say what dream it wa s " ( I V, i, 212). But
f o r t he moment he i s, even i n h i s t r a ns l a t e d s t a t e , r e l uc t a nt
t o p a r t wi t h a r a t i o n a l per cept i on of t h e world. We, who
have seen what happens when "reason and l ovev "keep company"
En Lysandert s decl ar at i on of love f o r Helena -
Lys.
The will of man is by his reason swayed,
And reason says you are the worthier maid,
Things growing are not ripe until their season;
So I, being young, till now ripe not to reason.
And touching now the point of human skill,
Reason becomes the marshall to my will
- can only agree with Titania when she admonishes Bottom:
"Out of this wood do not desire to go " (-111, i, 143) ,
Titania's promise to purge Bottom's "..- . . mortal
grossness so / That thou shalt like an airy spirit go
(111, i, 168), refers back to her original perception of
the "beast" as "angel" while, at the same time, looking ahead
to her attempts at placing Bottom correctly in the Fairy
world. The purgative powers of Eros which are, while
Titania remains spellbound, at her command, recall the
ability of Venus to make love into It. . . a spirit all
compact of fire / Not gross to sink, but light and will
aspire " (Venus and Adonis, 149-50). But while the proposed
purification failed to materialize in Venus and Adonis, in
A Midsummer-Night's Dream it is accomplished by the tenacity
with which ~itania clings to her "blindw perception of
A -
-
-
. -. --
Bottom as angelic, thus introducing the world of the play
to the "lightw of Eros, a light which will penetrate and
transform the chthonic elements of the dramatic action.
Both avid R . Young and R, 9, Zimbardo poi nt o u t t he
many c ont r a r i e s which a r e transformed t o a s t at e of
di s cor di a concors through t he union of Ti t a ni a and Bottom.
Thei r "marriage" i mpl i es a di s cor di a concors, f o r through
it t he l owest l e ve l of human exi s t ence - Bottom, t he
-- -
-..... - - -.
_- I--
mechanical, lowered t o t he f i gur e of an a s s - i s j oi ned
t o t he hi ghes t l e ve l of consci ousness - t h e di vi ne
7 - --- -- - - ----- - _ - "_
as pect of Ti t a ni a , t he Fai r y Queen. The harmonious union
of t hes e incongruous l over s i l l u s t r a t e s , i n metaphor-Lcal
---4__
t e r m s , t he descent of Eros from t he a e r i a l world t o t he
------
lowest l e ve l qf t he pl a y' s s oc i a l s t r uc t ur e . As di vi ni t y,
-
i n Renaissance cosmology, f i l t e r s down t hrough t he many
I
spheres of i nf l uence, t he l i g h t of Eros, di scovered i n
Ti t a ni a ' s bl i ndnes s , a l s o permeates t he e n t i r e world of
t he pl ay from t op t o " B o t t ~ m. ~
Once t he r i t e of Eros has been enact ed, t h e pl ay i s
f r eed from i t s previ ous s t e r i l e condi t i on and t he
metamorphosis of Diana i n t o Aphrodite i s accomplished.
The
new world of t he pl ay is di scovered a s one which i s a s
favourabl e t o t h e presence of Eros a s t he ol d world was
unfavourable. But t he mystery which brought about t h i s
t r ansf or mat i on i s beyond comprehension and a s such it remains
out of t he reach of reason even a f t e r t he charm has been
l i f t e d from t he eyes of t he pa r t i c i pa nt s and t he world has
r et ur ned t b normal. None of t he char act er s i s capabl e of
underst andi ng wmt has occurred, ,though each s ens es t h a t
t he world has undergone a t ransformat i on-nakl ' ng it
favourabl e t o " t r ue" l ove.
Bottom, who was c l o s e s t among mor t al s t o t he experi ence,
has t he most accur at e percept i on. He Xnows t h q t he has
i
seen "A most r a r e vi s i on, " a dream, " pas t t he w i t of man
t
i
t o say what dream it was." Xn c ont r a s t , Ti t ani a, who was
1
t he agent of Eros, i s unabl e, once he r vi s i on is r es t or ed,
1
t o r e c a l l any por t i on of t he mystery a t a l l :
Ti t a .
My Oberon: what vi s i ons have I seen!
-
Methought I was enamouryd of an ASS.
-
I
CIY, i, 82-3)
j
I t would seem t h a t Bottom, on whom t he d i v i n i t y of Eros
I
f i n a l l y s e t t l e d , i s a l s o t he one who r e t a i n s t he c l e a r e s t
sense of awe a t what has happened.
u--
For t he l over s t he event s of t he ni ght t qke on, i n t he
l i g h t of day, t he qua l i t y of dreams. Thi s i s pa r t i c ul a r l y
t r u e of Demetrius, f o r he, al one, has not been r el eas ed
from t he f l ower ' s charms:
Den.
-
A r e you s ur e
That we are awake? I t seems t o me
That y e t w e s l eep, we dream,
Demetrius remain8 under t he s p e l l of Eros, f o r i n h i s
cas e t he bl i ndnes s i s r evel at or y. While t he ot he r l over s
have r et ur ned t o t h e i r former a l l i a nc e s , which i n t he new
world can now be r e a l i z e d, Demetrius has t r a ns f e r r e d h i s
devot i on from Hermla t o Helena. Nor i s t h i s merel y a
cont r i vance on Shakespeare' s p a r t t o round out t he pl ot .
Demetrius, when pl aced under t he s p e l l of l ove, was
s t r uck not onl y by t he bl i ndness sf Amor mundi but ql s o
by t h e l i g h t of Amor dei ;
Obe. When h i s l ove he dot h espy,
-
L e t he r s hi ne as gl or i ous l y
A s t h e Venus of t he sky.
(111, ii, 105-8)
Si nce t he powers of Aphrodite Urania were evoked, Demetrius
does not need t o be r el eas ed from h i s dream, f o r he has,
by l ovi ng Helena, ent er ed a s t a t e of bei ng which
t r anscends bot h t he "normal" waking s t a t e and t h e bl i ndness
of Amor mundi.
Theseus shows, by not imposing t he law which he
upheld i n A c t I on t he transformed l over s , t h a t he, t oo,
i s p a r t of t he new climate which f avour s t he presence of
l ove. Yet, de s pi t e h i s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n t he new worl d, he
i s unabl e t o accept t he myst eri ous occurrences a s t hey a r e
r e l a t e d --.- t o him. The mi r acl e which has t ransformed t he
world from chaos to order is, for him, the effect of q
too ''strong imagination " , i, 1 Hippolyta is
closer in her estimate:
-. But all the story of the night told over,
And all their minds transfigurld so together,
More witnesseth than fancy's images,
And grows to something of great constancy,
But, howsoever, strange and admirable.
(V, i, 23-7)
It is left for the wedded lovers to wait out the
evening by watching "The most lamentable comedy and most
cruel death of Pyramus and Thishe." The playlet reflects,
as Theseus points out, the discordia concors which has
become the new condition of the world:
The. A tedious brief scene of young Pyramus
-
And his love Thisbe; 'very tragical myth.'
Merry and tragical? Tedious and brief?
That is, hot ice and wondrous strange snow.
How shall we find the concord of this discord?
(V, i, 56-60)
Though tragic in content, this entertainment cannot carry
a dark vision into a world informed by Eros. In such a
state of harmony, tragedy becomes burlesque. The final
vision of A Midsummer-Night's Dream is as far away from
the darkness of tragedy as is possible. The world has
become a place where all opposition is neutralized through
harmonious union, and therein lies the concord of the discord
i
which Theseus wishes to find.
We end in a world which is blessed by Fairies. It is,
in contrast to Venus and Adonis, a form of paradise remade.
We have witnessed a miracle of divinity, a dream ''past the
.-. wit of man." as such it is not for us.to understand it, in
totality. Therefore, in true serio ludere fashion, the
mysterious transformation of the world is disguised by the
prankster, Puck, who cautions us:
puck. If we shadows have offended,
~hgnk but this, and all is mended:
That you have but slumbered here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more-yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend
I (V, i, 413-18)
Chapter 111.
ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.
From a realm i nhabi t ed by a goddess i n Venus and
Adonis and a world watched over by f a i r i e s i n A Midsummer-
Ni ght ' s Dr e a m, we move t o t he more r e a l i s t i c s e t t i n g of
Antony and Cl eopat ra. Venus i s not per s oni f i ed i n t he
l a t e r pl ay, nor does t he f i gur e of Eros descend t o
inform t h e drama, y e t Antony and Cl eopat ra s har es wi t h
t he two e a r l i e r works an expl or at i on ,of
The poem, we r e c a l l , eqded wi t h Venust s
prophecy, whi l e t he comedy proposed t he
of Eros. Both t hes e themes reappear i n
Love' s myst eri es.
des pai r i ng
heal i ng triumph
Antony and
1
Cl eopat ra, where l ove i s f i r s t seen a s t he s ubj e c t of
di s cor d, onl y t o emerge i n t he l a t e r a c t s a s "something
of g r e a t constancy."
The t hemat i c r e l a t i ons hi p of t hes e works i s f ur t he r
developed by t h e i r common use of mythology as a mode
of expressi on. While t he gods and goddesses of c l a s s i c a l
4'
myth do not a c t ua l l y appear i n Antony and Cl eopat ra, t he
pl ay i s never t hel es s informed by t he myst i c vi s i on of
Venus i n union wi t h Mars. Before di s cus s i ng Shakespeare' s
I
use of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r myth, however, I w i l l b r i e f l y
look a t t he pl ace of mythology, i n gener al , i n Antony
and Cl eopat ra.
Though Shakespeare does not i ncl ude t he heavenly
spheres i n t he l i t e r a l cosmology of Antony and Cl eopat r a,
t h e gods a r e made pr es ent through t he a s s oc i a t i ve power
of imagery. Cl eopat ra i s gi ven a t t r i b u t e s of Isis and
Venus, whi l e Antony i s surrounded by images of Hercul es
and Mars. The f i gur e s of mythology inform t he person- 6'
a l i t i e s of bot h, gi vi ng them a s t a t u r e which di s t i ngui s hes
them from ot he r char act er s i n t he play. There is, s o t o
speak, a l a t e n t god wi t hi n them, which it i s t h e i r dut y
t o di scover and t o expr ess, t o i t s f u l l e s t capaci t y i n
mor t al form.
Thi s would suggest t h a t Shakespeare, i n t h i s l a t e
pl ay, w a s more concerned wi t h t he pot e nt i a l of man t o
uncover t he presence of di vi ni t y wi t hi n him, t han with
t he i nt er change between c e l e s t i a l and t errest ri al realms.
I n ot he r words, t he di vi s i on made between heaven and e a r t h
by cosmological geography i s, i n Antony and Cl eopat ra,
broken down. W e do not wi t ness t h e descent of a heavenly
god o r goddess, as i n Venus and Adonis and A Midsurnmer-
Ni ght ' s Dream, nor do we l eave t he world t o ascend t o
hi gher %owledge, a s i n Dant e' s Di vi ne Comedy.
I ns t ead,
we are shown a growth toward d i v i n i t y , i ns pi r ed by l ove,
which i s pos s i bl e on e a r t h. Love is viewed, a s it were,
from t he bottom up r a t h e r t han from t he t op down and
consequent l y i t s metamorphic powers do not depend on a
per s oni f i ed Venus o r Er os, but r a t h e r upon t he a b i l i t y ,
which i s man' s, t o expr ess hi msel f i n heavenl y forms.
1 4 9
Si mi l ar l y, t h e phi l os ophi cal t ermi nol ogy which has hel ped
t hroughout t h i s paper t o expr ess t h e movements of l ove
on a myt hol ogi cal l e ve l , does not appl y t o Antony and
Cl eopat r a. Si nce no godhead o r di vi ne f or ce is i d e n t i f i e d
i n t he pl ay, t h e exper i ences of emanat i o and r a p t i o cannot
be expr essed. A modi fi ed form of r emeat i o i s pos s i bl e,
however, s i nc e l ove rises, i n t h e . f i n a 1 acts, t o r e f l e c t
a di vi ne form.
While bot h Venus and Adonis and A Midsummer-Night's
Dream show t h e i nt e r f e r e nc e of c e l e s t i a l f or ces i n t h e i r
worl ds, t he ci r cumf er ence of Antony and Cl eopat r a
des cr i bes onl y t h e e a r t h. A l a r ge p a r t of t he pl a y' s
1 4 9 ~ y s h i f t i n g h i s emphasis from s uper nal f i gur e s t o human
ones, Shakespeare may have been r e f l e c t i ng t h e pr ocess
by which Mediaeval concern wi t h heavenl y hi e r a r c hi e s
gave way t o t h e new Renai ssance be l i e f i n t he i mport ance
of man' s pos i t i on i n t h e cosmos. The cel ebr at i on of
man's new s t a t u r e i s be s t expr essed by Pi co d e l l a
Mirandola: "Oh, wondrous and unsur passabl e f e l i c i t y of
man. t o whom it i s qr ant ed t o have what he chooses, t o
be what he w i l l s to-be!" Or at i on on t he Di gni t y of Man,
t r a ns . Robert Caponi gri (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1956,
power may der i ve from t h i s l i mi t a t i on, f o r denied access
t o di vi ni t y t hrough cosmology, t he world of Antony and
Cl eopat ra, a s Maurice Charney poi nt s out , 150 pr es s es i t s
4
e a r t hl y del i neat i on t o overflowing. Si mi l ar l y, we watch
t he pas s i onat e l ove of Antony and Cl eopat ra s t r i v e t o
achi eve i t s heavenly form wi t hout t he a i d of di vi ne
i nt er vent i on.
While c r i t i c s have l ong recognized t h a t t he l ove
between Antony and Cl eopat ra reaches i t s climax i n a
t ranscendent mystery, l5' t he mythology which surrounds t h i s
apot heosi s i s gener al l y r e f e r r e d t o only i n passi ng.
Det ai l ed s t udi e s o,f the pl ay' s use of myth i ncl ude
Eugene M. Wai t h' s The Herculean Hero, 152 which t r a c e s
t he r e l a t i ons hi p of Antony and Hercules, and Michael
Lloyd' s a r t i c l e on "Cl eapat ra a s Isis. Ernest
Schanzer b r i e f l y di s cus s es t h e pantheon of myt hol ogi cal
150~a ur i c e Charney, Shakespeare1 s Roman Pl ays : The Function
of Imagery i n t he Drama (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.
Pr. , l 9 6 l ) , pp. 79f f .
l 3%ee e s pe c i a l l y, G. Wilson Knight, The Imperi al Theme
(London: Oxford Univ. Pr. , 1932; r epr i nt ed by Methuen
& Co., 1963).
-
152~ugene M. Waith, The Herculean Hero (London: Chat t o &
Windus, 1962).
153~i c ha e l Lloyd, "Cl eopat ra a s Isis, " Shakespeare Survey 1 2
( l 959) , pp. 88-94.
f i gur e s i n t he pl ay, 154 as does Harold Pi sch i n h i s
a r t i c l e on "The L i mi t s of tholo lo^^. "15! Shakespeare' s
knowledge of Venus and Mars i s thoroughly i nves t i gat ed
by Raymond B. Waddington, who sees t h e i r myth a s c e n t r a l
t o an underst andi ng of t he play.
15 6
I
The union of Mars and Venus, though it does not d
s t and al one a s t h e onl y use of mythology i n t he pl ay,
informs t he l ove theme throughout. Antony i s as s oci at ed
wi t h Mars on s e ve r a l occasi ons, whi l e Enobarbus' capt ures
t h e Venus as pect of Cl eopat ra i n h i s famous t r i b u t e t o
her (11, ii, 190-205). The most i mport ant use of myth,
however, l i es i n t he analogy between t he s ur r ender of
, .
1 5 4 ~r n e s t Schanzer , The Problem Pl ays of Shakespeare ( New
York: Schoken Bks., 1963), pp. 153ff.
155~a r ol d Fi sch, "Antony and Cl eopat ra: The Li mi t s of
Mythology," Shakespeare Survey 23 ('1970), pp. 59-67.
156~aymond B. Waddington, "Antony and Cl eopat ra : What Venus
di d wi t h Mars,' " Shakespeare St udi es I1 (1966), pp. 210-
227. While I have found Mr . Waddington' s a r t i c l e bot h
us ef ul and i l l umi nat i ng, my paper d i f f e r s from h i s , because
he is pr i mar i l y concerned wi t h showing how t h e Venus / Mars
myth dominates and consumes t he myt hol ogi cal r ef er ences
t o Hercules and Isis i n t he pl ay. H i s di s cus s i on of t he
union of Venus and Mars concent rat es on Renaissance
sources and opi ni ons of t he myt hol ogi cal meaning, though
he does, towards t h e concl usi on of h i s a r t i c l e , begi n t o
appl y t h e philosophy t o t he t ext .
Mars t o Venus and Ant ony' s cor r espondi ng s ur r ender t o
5 Cl eopat r a. There are many p a r a l l e l s i n t h e pl a y which
s ugges t t h a t t he model f o r t he l ove r e l a t i o n s h i p between
Antony and Cl eopat r a i s t h e Venus / Mars myth.
I have
t he r e f or e chosen t o rest ri ct my di s c us s i on t o t h e use
of t h i s myth and t o r e f e r t o t h e Hercul ean and Isis mot i f s
ff
onl y when t hey c ont r i but e t o an under st andi ng of l ove i n
t h e pl ay.
W e recall t h a t t h e conqueri ng of Mars by Venus wa s
underst ood as a subl i me myst ery i n which t h e mat i ng of
If"
c o n t r a r i e s produced Harmonia, t h e c h i l d of t h e i r uni on.
Pi co d e l l a Mi r andol a' s s t at ement , .'I. . . i f Mars were v"
al ways s ubor di nat ed t o Venus, t ha t , i s, t h e c o n t r a r i e t y of
t he component el ement s t o t h e i r due pr opor t i on, hot hi ng
would ever pe r i s h "157 - s ugges t s t h a t t h e myth poi nt s
t oward a p a r a d i s i a l condi t i on. Two Renai ssance pa i nt i ngs ,
which I s h a l l i nt r oduce her e, expr es s t h e pr opor t i oni ng of
cont r ar y el ement s which l eads t o i mper i shabl e harmony.
The
f i r s t i s t h e "Venus and Mars" of Paol o Veronese (PLATE 3)
which ' I. . . r e pr e s e nt s a l l e g o r i c a l l y t h e chas t eni ng e f f e c t
of t h e harmony between t h e i r a s c i b l e and t h e concupi s ci bl e.
Mars hi des t h e lower p a r t of Venus' body and t hus chas t ens
concupi sci ence; Venus put s one arm on t h e s houl der of t h e
1 5 7 ~ i c o d e l l a Mi randol a, "On t h e General Nat ure of Beaut y, "
. Cornmento 11, v i , quot ed by Edgar Wind i n Pagan Myst er i es
i n t h e Renai ssance (London: Faber & Faber , 1958) , p. 89.
kneel i ng Mars, r e s t r a i ni ng i r a s c i b i l i t y . And t he r e s t r a i n t
+
of i r a s c i b i l i t y i s pl ayf ul l y r e s t a t e d by t he Cupid who
uses Mars' sword t o r e s t r a i n h i s war-horse. The
second pai nt i ng i s "The Triumph of Venus," by Francesco
Cossa (PLATE 41, which shows t he kneel i ng Mars who has
given himself i n vassal age t o t he goddess Venus. H e i s
bound t o her t hron6 by chai ns which symbolize t he f e t t e r s
of l ove. 15'
I n bot h pai nt i ngs , Venus i s vi c t or i ous over
pr'
t he war l i ke Mars, f o r t he al l egor y symbolized t he hope t h a t
l ove i s more powerful t han s t r i f e . 160
Mars, conquered by
l ove, i s s t i l l dressed i n armour and though r n t he Cossa
. e
pai nt i ng he kneel s, h i s gaze meets t h a t of Venus proudly,
f o r ". . . t he Mars always r e t a i ns , even when
d
dominated by t h e pl anet Venus, a c e r t a i n degree of boldness
and be l l i c os e f er vour - a poi nt c l e a r l y brought out by
Fi ci no i n De amore V, v i i i , and not negl ect edXby Cossa. I, 161
Shakespeare i nt roduced t he union of Mars and Venus
i n Venus and Adonis:
Over my a l t a r s hat h he hung h i s l ance,
H i s b a t t e r l d s hi e l d, h i s uncont rol l ed c r e s t ,
And f o r my sake hat h l e a r nt d t o s por t and dance,
158~obe r t Kellogg and Ol i ver St eel e, eds. , Books I and 11 of
The Faer i e Queene (New York: Odyssey Pr . , 1965), i nt r od.
p. 51.
15'wind, op. c i t . , p. 89.
l6'wind, op. ci t . , p. 89.
161~i nd, op. c i t . , p. 90.
PLATE 3. Paolo Veronese, "Ears and Venus,"
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
I
PLATE 4. Fr ances co Cossa, "The Triumph of Venus, "
Pa l a z z o Sc hi f a noi a , Fe r r a r a .
PLATE 5. Bot t i cel l i , "Mars and Venus, "
-
Na t i ona l Ga l l e r y, London.
To t oy, t o wanton, da l l y, s m i l e , and jest;
Scorning h i s c hur l i s h drum and ensi gn r ed,
Making my arms h i s f i e l d , h i s t e n t my bed.
The poem, a s we have seen, di d not end on t he not e of
harmony, promised by t he Venus / Mars union, but r a t he r
on one of di s cor d and des pai r . I n Antony and Cl eopat ra
we move through t he des pai r voioed i n Venus' d i r e f u l
prophecy, t o a r edi scover y of t he "i mperi shabl e" condi t i on
which t h e union of Venus and Mars produces.
162
But t he range of Antony and Cl eopat ra, a s I have
al r eady suqgest ed, does not i ncl ude t he heavenly
spheres; it i s a pl ay f i r ml y grounded on t he ear t h.
I
Already we a r e faced wi t h one of t he complex problems
i n t he pl ay' s mythic s t r uc t ur e . The union of Venus and
Mars was a g r e a t Renaissance mystery, i mmort al i zed, as
Pi co d e l l a Mirandola wrote, i n t he s t a r s : "Si mi l ar l y,
accordi ng t o t he anci ent as t r ol oger s . . . Venus was
pl aced i n t he c e nt r e of hedyen next t o Mars, because
she must tame h i s impulse which i s by nat ur e de s t r uc t i ve
16*por a di s cus s i on on t he r e l a t i ons hi p between t h e f a l l
of l ove i n Venus and Adonis and i t s r e b i r t h i n Antony
and Cl eopat ra, see J. W. Lever' s a r t i c l e , "Venus and
t he Second Chance," Shakespeare Survey X I 7 (1962), pp.
81-88.
and cor r upt i ng, "163 The ga z e t h a t reveal ed t he myst eri ous
harmony of t h e i r union looked heavenward and y e t Shakespeare
chose t o r e c r e a t e t h e i r s t or y i n a worl dl y cont ext . The
t heol ogi cal i mpropri et y of such an act i on i s analogous
t o Nat ure' s own when, s t e a l i ng moulds fran heaven, she
cr eat ed t h e di vi nel y be a ut i f ul Adonis. Divine beaut y, t he
poem t o l d us, cannot sur vi ve on ear t h. Si mi l ar l y, though
Antony and Cl eopat ra s t r i v e t o enact t he myth of Venus and
Mars on e a r t h, t hey cannot escape t h e i r worl dl y condi t i on.
Thei r at t empt t o enact t he di vi ne i n t he mundane sphere
gi ves b i r t h t o s t r i f e and confusion. Antonyls cl ai m t h a t
k"
t h e l over s need "new heaven, new ear t h. " (I, i, 17)
i n or der t o measure t he s t r engt h of t h e i r union, proves
t r u e , a s t hey must metamorphose themselves, l eavi ng t h e i r
worl dl y personae behind, i n or der t o r e a l i z e t he harmony
,
of Venus and Mars.
A t t he pl a y' s opening, Antony and Cl eopat ra are
i nnocent of t he pr i c e which must be pai d f o r t he crime
of t h e i r hubr i s. Withou t! penal t y they have each claimed
1 6 3 ~i c o d e l l a Mirandola, quoted i n Wind, op. ci t . , p. 89.
Erwin Panofsky, St udi es i n Iconology (London: Oxford
Univ, Pr . , 1939, l 967) , p. 164: 'I. . . i n every a s t r o-
l ogi c a l t r e a t i s e we f i nd t he axiom t h a t Venus by her
mildness tempers t he f e r oc i t y of Mars whi l e he, her
' s u i t o r , ' i s never s t r ong enough t o s h a t t e r he r ge nt l e
power.
a por t i on of d i v i n i t y f o r t hemsel ves. They al one, of a l l
t h e c ha r a c t e r s i n t h e pl ay, are informed by myt hol ogi cal
i magery t h a t s t r i v e s t o ascend. Antony, Caesar t el l s us ,
pr evi ous l y showed q u a l i t i e s which t r anscended human
f r a i l t y :
Caes. When t hou once
Wast beaten from Modena, where t hou s l e w ' st
Hi r t i u s and Pansa, consul s, a t t hy he e l
Did fami ne f ol l ow, whom t hou f ought ' s t a ga i ns t ,
Thou d a i n t i l y br ought up, wi t h pat i ence more
Than savages coul d s uf f e r . Thou d i d s t dr i nk
The st al e of hor s es , and t he gi l ded puddl e
Which be a s t s would cough a t : t hy p a l a t e t hen d i d
dei gn
The r oughes t ber r y, on t he r ude s t hedge;
Yea, l i k e t h e s t a g, when snow t he pa s t ur e s he e t s ,
The bar ks of trees t hou browsed. On t h e Al ps
It i s r e por t e d t hou d i d s t eat s t r a nge f l e s h ,
Which some d i d d i e t o look on: and a l l t h i s -
It wounds t h i n e honour t h a t I speak it now -
Was bor ne s o l i k e a s o l d i e r , t h a t t hy cheek
So much as l a nkl d not .
(I, i v , 56-71)
s i m i l a r l y , Cl eopat r a appeared, accor di ng t o Enobarbus:
no. O' er - pi ct ur i ng t h a t Venus where we see
The f ancy outwork nat ur e.
(11, ii, 200-1)
I t shoul d be not ed t h a t we r ecei ve t hes e i nf or mat i ons
from t he two l east l i k e l y sour ces, Caesar on Antony, and
Enobarbus on clebpatra (which enhances t h e i r p l a u s i b i l i t y ) .
The s ugges t i on t h a t Antony and Cl eopat r a have i ndi vi dua l l y
s t r e t c h e d t he l i m i t s of human p o s s i b i l i t y , a l l o t t e d by
na t ur e - Antony as t h e s o l d i e r Mars, and Cl eopat r a as
t h e l ove and beaut y a s s oc i a t e d onl y wi t h Venus - l a ys
t h e f oundat i on f o r t h e i r hubr i s i n l ove.
The s ur r ender of t he war l i ke Mars t o t h e a f f i r ma t i ve
powers of Venus cannot t a ke pl ace wi t hi n t h e conf i nes of
Antony and Cl eopat r a. Any at t empt , on t h e p a r t of t h e
l ove r s , t o become "a race of heaven" (I, iii, 37) must of
ne c e s s i t y f a i l , f o r , as we have wi t nessed i n Venus and Adoni s,
t o achi eve t h e godl y on e a r t h i s an unpardonabl e s i n which
t h e f i xe d or de r of cosmology f or bi ds . Thus t h e openi ng
scene shows a f a l l e n Mars, a f a l l e n Venus and a char ade
of c o u n t e r f e i t harmony which t h e i r uni on i s meant t o
embody. Phi l o r ecount s t h e negat i ve st at e i n t o which
t h e i r godl i ke q u a l i t i e s have col l apsed:
Phi . Nay, b u t t h i s dot age of our ge ne r a l ' s
O' e r f l o ws t h e measure: t hose h i s goddl y eyes ,
That o ' e r t he f i l e s and must ers of t h e wa r
Have glow' d l i k e pl a t e d Mars, now bend, now t ur n
The o f f i c e and devot i on of t h e i r view
Upon a tawny f r ont : h i s c a pt a i n' s h e a r t ,
Which i n t h e s c u f f l e s of gr e a t f i g h t s hat h b u r s t
The buckl es on h i s br e a s t , r eneges a l l bemper,
And i s become t h e bel l ows and t h e f a n
To c ool a gi ps y' s l u s t .
(I, i, 1-9)
The p o s i t i v e a s pe c t s of the-.venus / Mars conj unct i on a r e ,
her e, e n t i r e l y negat ed. Phi l o l ament s Ant ony' s l o s s of h i s
ma r t i a l powers, and h i s vassal age t o l ove, whi l e Cl eopat r a
i
ji
. i s reduced t o a s educt i ve "tawny f r ont , " a sensuous gi psy
o r wi t ch. Ant ony' s s ur r ender t o h i s queen, i n l ove, is
" :r t-.Cr':i
f ur t he r des cr i ed a s " t he bellows and t h e f an, n which------
: ' * l ? + T
cool s t h e passi ons of " l us t . "
The f a l l e n image of Venus and Mars shows us t he
harmonious bal ance of t h e i r union undone. The Veronese
pai nt i ng (PLATE 3 ) de pi c t s a series of r e s t r i c t i n g f or ces
which keep bot h t he f e r oc i t y of Mars and t he vol upt uousness
of Venus i n check. When e i t h e r t h e s ens ual o r ma r t i a l /
as pect of t h e i r par t ner s hi p becomes dominant and overpowering,
t hen t he myst i cal s i gni f i cance of t h e i r bal anced union i s
broken and t he myth of per f ect i on di s s ol ves i n t o chaos.
When t he s ens ual s i de of Venus dominates, t he goddess becomes
an enchant ress whose powers of l ove ensl ave r a t h e r t han temper
the s t r e ngt h of Mars. When Mars and Venus a r e pr oper l y
uni t ed, t hen even though Venus i s t he s t r onger , y e t Mars
r e t a i n s h i s val our . The enchant ress Venus, on t he ot her
hand, robs her vi ct i ms of t h e i r s t r e ngt h, by exhaust i ng them
i n s t r uggl e s of passi on. Bo t t i c e l l i ' s pai nt i ng of "Venus and
Mars" (PLATE 5) shows t he r e s u l t , and suggest s a modified
ver s i on of t he enchant r ess theme. Mars l i e s naked, physi cal l y
exhaust ed, whi l e Venus i s both cl ot hed and a l e r t . H e r Cupids
pl ay wi t h Marst di sar r ayed armour, whi l e he l i es def encel ess
and vul nerabl e.
16%
164~s Edgar Wind poi nt s out , "The r educt i on of Mars t o a
s l eepi ng l ovi ng swain, surrounded by amor et t i pl ayi ng a t
war, i s wi t h a l l due allowance f o r t he wide i nf l uence of
horoscopy , emphat i cal l y - not an a s t r ol ogi c a l image, I' Wind,
op. c i t . , p. 90.
The motif of t he ensl aved Mars opens t h e pl ay Antony
and Cl eopat ra. Antony, who was once "The t r i p l e p i l l a r
of t he world, " has been "t ransform' dw " I nt o a s t r umpet ' s
f ool " :
Phi .
-
Look where t hey come:
Take but good not e, and you s h a l l see i n him
The t r i p l e p i l l a r of t he world t r ans f or mt d
I n t o a st r umpet ' s f ool : behold and see.
(I, i, 10914).
Y e t t he r e a r e i ndi cat i ons i n t h i s f i g s t scene t h a t t he
l ove between Antony and Cl eopat ra had, a t i t s b i r t h ,
a nobl er form. W e recail t h a t both Antony and Cl eopat ra
had achi eved, p r i o r t o t h e i r meeting, an expr essi on of
per sonal d i v i n i t y which brought them t he r e l u c t a n t
admi rat i on of Caesar and Enobarbus. W e can f u r t h e r
deduce, from t he nat ur e of t h e i r f i r s t exchange and
\
by pi eci ng t oget her fragments of exposi t or y i nformat i on,
t h a t when t he l over s f i r s t confront ed each ot he r t hey
underwent an experi ence of r apt i o. Antony' s cl ai m t o
a l ove t h a t i s beyond measure and Cl eopat r at s memory of
" a r ace of heavent' poi nt s toward a hi gh experi ence of
t he di vi ni t y of Eros. Moreover, Antony behaves a s b e f i t s
a man who has been s t r uck by t he winged god, as Socr at es
recount s n the' Phaedrus:
4
. , . and t h i s i s t he sweetest of a l l pl eas ur es st
t he t i m e , and i s t he reason why t he s oul of t he
l over w i l l never f or sake h i s be a ut i f ul one, whom
he esteems above a l l ; . he has f or got t en mother
and br et hr en and companions, and he t hi nks not hi ng
of t he negl ect and l os s of h i s pr oper t y; t h e r u l e s
and pr ope r t i e s of l i f e , on which he formerl y pr i ded
hi msel f, he now des pi s es , . . , 165
And ye t , whi l e t h e l over s have forsaken, f o r a t i m e , t he
world of p o l i t i c s , t hey have not withdrawn from t he
mat er i al world of s ens ual appet i t e. Count l ess images of
e a t i ng and dr i nki ng a s wel l a s sexual excess surround
them.
166
On one l e v e l t hey r epr es ent t he f a l l e n l over s of
Pl ot i ni an philosophy who, whi l e i ns pi r e d a t f i r s t , ". . .
ne i t he r underst and whi t her Eove sought t o l ead them nor
have t hey any i n s t i n c t t o product i on; t hey have not
mastered t he r i g h t use of t he images of beaut y; t hey do
not know what t h e Aut hent i c Beauty i s The nat ur e of
t h i s l ove, however, i s t r a ns i t or y, Fi ci no, we r e c a l l ,
remarked t h a t t he t r oubl e wi t h s ens ual pl eas ur e wa s not
t h a t it was enj oyabl e but t h a t it di d not l a s t . 16* y e t
1 6 5 ~l a t o , Phaedrus, t r ans . Benjamin Jowet t i n The Dialogues
of Pl at o, vol . I1 (London: Sphere Bks., 1970), p. 269.
166~har ney, 0;. c i t . , chap. I V, "The Imagery of Antony and
Cleppat' ra, s e c t . ii, "Eat i ng and Drinking, " p, 102.
167~l ot i nus , The Enneads, t r a ns . Stephen MacKenna (London :
Faber & Faber, l93O), I I I . v, "Love,' p. 192,
t h e l ove between Antony and Cl eopat ra, de s pi t e Antony' s t '
at t empt s t o break away, has a permanence which, though
always pr esent , must wai t t o r ecei ve i t s f u l l e s t expr essi on
i n t he l a s t a c t s . ?his would suggest t h a t t h e nat ur e of
t h e i r passi on i s c l os e r t o t h a t born of Peni a and Poros.
This i s a l ove which, whi l e it moves toward t he Good,
can never be t r u l y s a t i s f i e d. It has a mixed qua l i t y:
"On t he one hand t he r e i s i n it t he l ack which keeps it
cravi ng; on t he ot her , it i s not e n t i r e l y d e s t i t u t e , t he
de f i c i e nt seeks more of what it has, and c e r t a i n l y not hi ng
abs ol ut el y voi d of good would ever go seeki ng t he Good.
8,169
From Enobarbus' poi nt of view, t h i s i s t he ba s i s of
Cl eopat r al s a t t r a c t i o n and by ext ensi on t h e ' b a s i s of t he
',
l over s 1 mutual adorat i on:
Eno. Age cannot wi t her her , nor custom s t a l e
-
H e r i n f i n i t e var i et y: ot her women cl oy
The a ppe t i t e s t hey feed, but she makes hungry,
Where most she s a t i s f i e s .
(11, ii, 235-8)
Thus t he love between Antony and Cl eopat ra is ne i t he r
d
t he l u s t t h a t Phi l o condemns a s t he agent of Antony' s
des t r uct i on, nor t he c e l e s t i a l l y i ns pi r ed b l i s s which Antony
and Cl eopat ra claim. It l i e s somewhere between t he two. The
kind, op. c i t . , p. 55.
1 6 9 ~l o t i n u s , op. c i t . ,
l over s have experi enced t he f ur or o r r a p t i o which prompts
them t o des cr i be t h e i r l ove usi ng t he metaphors of heaven,
but t hey have a l s o pushed t he s ens ual t o i t s l i m i t s and a r e
t hus more i n cont act wi t h t h e world t han e i t h e r is ready t o
admit .
The p a r t i a l t r u t h of Phi l o' s remarks becomes apparent
a s Antony at t empt s t o f r e e himself from Cl eopat r a' s power.
H i s sudden "Roman thought' ' (I, ii, 8 0 ) , a s Cl eopat ra
foresees, has f a r reachi ng consequences f o r t he drama of
t h e i r love. The messengers c a r r y news of pa s t and f ut ur e
wars, and Antony, i n a mood t o l i s t e n , dons t h e ver y mar t i al
as pect which he had surrendered completely ' - t o l ove. Once
t he break i s made, Antony i s a bl e t o s e e Cl eopat ra more
c l e a r l y and t he queen of h i s love becomes v i s i b l e a s an
enchant r ess, ". . . cunning pa s t man's t hought " (I, ii, 143):
Ant. - I must from t h i s enchant i ng queen break o f f ,
Ten thousand harms, more t han t he i l l s I know,
My i dl enes s dot h hat ch. Ho now, Enobarbus!
(I, ii, 125-7)
A s Antony moves f ur t he r i n t o t he s t r engt h of h i s ma r t i a l
as pect , Cl eopat ra t r i e s , through whatever means a r e a t her
di s pos al , t o r ecapt ur e him. A l l he r w i l e s a r e exposed, t o
such a degree t h a t Charmian f e e l s compelled t o warn her:
I
Char. Tn each t hi ng gi ve him way, cr os s him i n
-
nothing.
But t he l over s a r e moving s o r api dl y i n opposing di r e c t i ons
t h a t a break i s unavoidable. Cl eopat ra pl eads t h e cause
of Venus, r e c a l l i ng t he harmony of t h e i r former union:
Cleo. Et e r ni t y was i n our l i p s , and eyes,
B l i s s i n our brows' bent ; none our p a r t s ' s 0 poor,
But was a r ace of heaven. They a r e s o st i l l ,
O r t hou, t he gr e a t e s t s ol di e r of t he world,
A r t t u r n l d t he g r e a t e s t l i a r .
(I, iii, 35-9)
But Antony i s f i r m i n h i s r o l e a s a warri or:
Ant. The s t r ong neces s i t y of time commands
-
Our s e r vi c e s awhi l e
(I, iii, 42-3)
We see t h a t t hey a r e di vi ded, t h a t l ove r s bi ndi ng f or ce
no longer hol ds them. Antony pays token compliments:
Ant .
-
I go from hence
Thy s ol di e r , s er vant , making peace o r war,
A s t hou a f f e c t s .
(I, iii, 69-71)
But it i s Cl eopat ra who must f or ge t h e i r r e c onc i l i a t i on.
Backed i n t o a cor ner , she abr upt l y changes f ace and sur r ender s
t o t he power of Mars:
Cleo. Your honour c a l l s you hence,
Therefore be deaf t o my unpi t i ed f o l l y ,
r'
And a l l t h e gods go wi t h you!
Upon your sword
S i t l a u r e l vi ct or y, and smooth success
Be s t r ew' d before your f eet !
(I, iii, 97-101)
--.-
The harmony of t he Venus / Mars myth depends, a s has
been not ed, on a s e r i e s of r e s t r a i n t s which c r e a t e s a
bal ance. Act T opened wi t h t h e unr es t r ai ned powers of
Venus dominant. h t o n y l s r e t r i e v a l of h i s ma r t i a l
char act er swings t he bal ance of power i n t he opposing
di r ect i on. I t i s he who now dominates and who, i n consequence,
des t r oys t h e p o s s i b i l i t y f or harmonious union.
With Antonyls
t r ansf or mat i on, we move from Egypt t o t he Roman world,
where not hi ng of a t r anscendent nat ur e can be expressed.
The myst i c vi s i on of Venus and Mars becomes, i n t h i s new
world of s t a t e p o l i t i c s , t he i mpossi bl e dream of t he eunuch
Mardian who l i nge r s on t h e memory of t he god and goddess:
Mar. - Yet have I f i e r c e a f f e c t i ons , and t hi nk
What Venus di d wi t h Mars.
Cleo.
-
0 Charmian!
Where t h i n k ' s t t hou he i s now?
Mardi anl s yearni ngs expr ess, i n microcosm, t he movement
of t he myth i n t he pl ay. J u s t a s "What Venus di d t o Mars"
i s unat t ai nabl e t o him, it i s equal l y s o f o r t he pl ay, now
t h a t Antony has ent er ed t he Roman sphere of war and or der ,
which a r e ki nds of enforced chaos f o r l ove.
t
The Roman world r e f l e c t s a s t a t e i n which t he powers
of l ove a r e wholly s ubs er vi ent t o p o l i t i c a l e xpe di ~nc y and
t he defe' nce, i n war, of t he nat i on. I n s p i t e of t he emphasis
placed on i t s r a t i o n a l s t r uc t ur e , Rome i s t he s er vant of
chaos i n t he pl ay. 17' Because Rome i s not informed by
t he presence of Eros who, we r e c a l l , has t he power t o
shape chaos i n t o form, t he ma r t i a l or der which it imposes
on t he world i s dangerous. T t i s an or der devoid of t he
ha r m~nl z i ng pr i nc i pl e of l ove and, as such, severed from
t h a t di vi ne or der which f i l t e r s down through t he many
spher es of i nf l uence t o govern over t he ear t h. While t he
p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n Egypt i s more or less passed over,
much a t t e n t i o n i s gi ven t o t he p o l i t i c s of Rome, which are,
as might be expect ed, i n a st at e of t ur moi l and decay,
. uns t abl e and chaot i c. The bal ance of power between t he
,
t hr e e t r i umvi r s i s unsteady. Wars have been fought which
ext end p o l i t i c a l unr es t pa s t t he l i m i t s of s t a t e i n t o t he
fami l y s t r u c t u r e i t s e l f (I, il, 85-91), Pompey, who i s
a l l y wi t h t r eacher ous pi r a t e s , t hr eat ens t o a t t a c k and t he
Roman populace has become:
Ant. Our s l i pper y peopl e,
m o s e l ove i s never l i nk' d t o t he deserver
T i l l h i s de s e r t s a r e pa s t , . . .
(I, ii, 183-5)
1705. W. Lever, l oc. ci t . , pp. 87-8.
Prof. Lever suggest s
t h a t t he count er par t t o t he boar, symbol of chaos i n
1 Venus and Adonis i s , i n Antony and Cl eopat ra, Caesar.
However, it i s not t he uns t abl e p o l i t i c s of Rome,
per se, but t h e i r myt hol ogi cal expr es s i on, which relates
d i r e c t l y t o t h e met aphor i cal us e of Venus and Mars i n
t he pl ay. The pr esence of chaos i n Antony and Cl eopat r a,
a chaos r e s u l t i n g from Rome's mart i al per s uas i on, i s
di scover ed on a myt hi c l e v e l i n t h e f i g u r e of For t una and
her hol d over t he pl ay! s event s . l7' She i s t h e ver y
r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of i n s t a b i l i t y , as Boet hi us ha s he r expl ai n:
I nconst ancy i s my ver y essence; it i s t h e game
I never ceas e t o pl ay a s I t u r n my wheel i n i t s
ever changi ng ci rcl e, f i l l e d wi t h joy as I br i ng
t he t op t o t h e bot t om and t h e bot t om t o t h e t op.
Y e s , rise up on my wheel i f you l i k e , b u t
don' t count it an i n j u r y when by t h e same t oken
you begi n t o f a l l , a s t he r u l e s of t h e game w i l l
r equi r e. You rmt surely have been aware of my ways. 172
For t una' s di s r upt i ve and f i c k l e qual i t i es 173 a r e t h e
a n t i t h e s i s of t h e harmony and bal ance of Venus and Mars.
Being mut a bi l i t y, a ki n t o chaos, she i s t h e p e r f e c t symbol
1710n t he r o l e of f or t une i n Antony and Cl eopat r a, see:
Mari l yn Wi l l i amson, "For t une i n Antony and Cl eopat r a, "
J our nal of Engl i sh and Germanic Phi l ol ogy LXVII ( 1968) ,
pp. 432ff. ; Mi chael Ll oyd, "Antony and t h e Ga me of Chance, "
J. Eng. G e r . Phi l . LXI ( 1962) , pp. 548f f . ; P h i l i p J.
Tr aci , The Love Pl ay of Antony and Cl eopat r a (The Hague:
Mouton & Co., l 97O), pp. 132f f .
172~oe t hi us , The Consol at i on of phi l osophy, t r a ns . E. V.
i
Watts (pengui n Bks., 1969) , p. 57.
1730n Por t una, see: H. R. Pat ch, The Goddess For t una i n
Mediaeval Li t e r a t u r e (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Pr . ,
1927) ; Samuel C. Chew, The Pi l gr i mage of Li f e , chap. 3,
"The' tJorld of For t une, " ( New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr . ,
1962) .
f o r a world i n which t he powers of l ove a r e conquered by
t he f e r o c i t y of t he be l l i c os e Mars, Antony' s depar t ur e
t o Rome l eads him i n t o t he sphere of f or t une, a chaos of
mut abi l i t y t h a t excl udes a l l promise of l ove, It i s not
u n t i l he escapes t h e wheel of f or t une and t he Roman sphere
of e r r a t i c change, a s he does l a t e r i n t he pl ay, t h a t a
r econs t r uct i on of t he union of Mars and Venus, i n i t s
unperi shabl e condi t i on, i s agai n possi bl e.
I n Rome, Antony cont i nues t o s t r engt hen h i s ma r t i a l
image. Pompey, who hopes t h a t Antony w i l l remain Cl eopat r a' s
enchanted vi ct i m -
Pom.
-
but a l l t he charms of l ove,
S a l t Cl eopat ra, s of t en t hy wanvd l i p!
Let wi t chcr af t j oi n wi t h beaut y, l u s t wi t h bot h,
Ti e up t he l i b e r t i n e i n a f i e l d of f e a s t s ,
Keep h i s br ai n fuming; Epicurean cooks
Sharpen wi t h cl oyl es s sauce h i s a ppe t i t e ,
That s l e e p and feedi ng may prorogue h i s humour,
Even till a Lethe' d dul ness -
f i nds t h a t t he s l eepi ng unarmed Mars, whom he took t o be
an unknowing a l l y , has r i s e n and i s i n Rome pr epar i ng f o r
ba t t l e . Si mi l ar l y, though Caesar expect s apol ogi es, he
-
meets a proud Antony who speaks as Enobarbus hoped he
\
would, ", . . a s loud a s Mars '' (11, i,i, 6). Confronted by
an Antony who has ' r egai ned h i s former s t a t u r e , bot h Caesar
4
and Pompey a r e forced t o negot i at e.
Caesar t akes t he i n i t i a t i v e , bi ndi ng Antony' s l oya l t y
by a marri age of convenience,
Answering h i s own quest i on,
What hoop should hol d us st anch, from edge t o edgef' (11,
ii, 1 2 1 ) , he makes t h e o f f e r of marri age t o h i s sister
Octavia. There i s l i t t l e hope t h a t t he powers of Eros w i l l
a r i s e from t h i s union, a s it i s s o obvi ousl y made for
p o l i t i c a l purposes. Antony, however, more concerned f o r
h i s f or t une t han l ove, accept s t he match t o enhance h i s
p o l i t i c a l pr es t i ge. He has, it would seem, accomplished a l l
t h a t he i nt ended by h i s r et ur n t o Rome. Donning his mart i al
as pect , t he bal ance of power wi t h Caesar has been r es t or ed,
whi l e t he w a r wi t h Pompey has been avert ed.
The r e s pe c t which i s accorded t o Antony i n Rome shows
t h a t he has succeeded i n r ebui l di ng h i s damaged r eput at i on.
Cl eopat ra seems t o have faded i n t o t he background, whi l e
Antony has become, once more, t h e hero remembered by Phi l o
i n t he opening l i n e s of t he play. Y e t two i nci dent s r eveal
t h a t Antony i s ne i t he r f r e e of Egypt nor secur e i n Rome.
The f i r s t i s Enobarbus' des cr i pt i on of Cl eopat ra; t he second,
Antony' s exchange wi t h t he f or t une- t el l er .
Af t er t he ext ravagance of Egypt, t he Roman world
' has been, f o r a time, an a t t r a c t i v e a l t e r na t i ve . The
p o l i t i c a l t ur moi l which made it appear chaot i c, i n Act I,
I
has s i nc e been r e c t i f i e d .
Yet fox a11 i t s qppar ent l y
r e s t or e d or der , it remains a world devoid of t he
harmonious i nf l uence of Eros and no one makes t h i s
c l e a r e r t han Enobarbus, who r e c a l l s t he vi s i on of
Cl e opa t r a l s Beauty:
Eno. I w i l l t e l l you.
-
The barge she s a t i n , l i k e q bur ni sh' d t hr one
Burn' d on t he water: t he poop was beat en goldp
Purpl e t he s a t l s , and s o perfumed t h a t
The winds were love-sick wi t h t h e m; t he oqr s were
s i l v e r ,
Which t o t h e t une of f l u t e s kept s t r oke, and made
The water which t hey beat t o fol l ow f a s t e r ,
A s amorous of t h e i r s t r okes . For her own person,
I t Beggarld a l l des cr i pt i on . .
The pi c t ur e i s e xot i c and f or ei gn t o Roman th.ought,
Waves under t he barge a r e caressed by t he s t r okes of oar s.
The f emi ni hi t y i s s t r i ki ngl y d i f f e r e n t from Roman mascul i ni t y
and t he s e ns ua l i t y of Cl eopat ra, her "smi l i ng Cupids,"
"burni sh1 d t hr one, I' purpl e s a i l s , " love-sick" winds ,. , "di vers-
col oured f ans , " l eap out a t us a ga i ns t a s ever e Roman
landscape. Even Agrippa, Roman of Romans, can onl y gasp
i n wonder, "0, r a r e f o r Antony!" (11, ii, 205) .
Enobarbus' t r i b u t e t o Cl eopat ra appears a t a time
f
when t he myth of Mars and Venus, having expressed i t s two
extremes of pl easur e and mar t i al s t r i f e , seems t o have
.
faded from t he pl a y' s concerns.
But the myth i s reawakened
By t h s s remembrance of Cl eopat r at s beaut y, By pl aci ng
Venus, a s she appears through Cleopatxa, fin t he c e nt r e of
a world dominated by p o l i t i c a l concerns, Shakespeare reminds
u s t h a t a f a r gr e a t e r harmony t han t he or der l y negot i at i ons
which we have wi t nessed, hovers over t he pl ay,
Antony, however, i s not p r i w t o t h i s i nformat i on. He
has moved t oo f a r i n t o t he ma r t i a l persuasi on of Rome t o
he Enfluenced by t he appar i t i on of the "Rare Egyptian!"
1 i , 218). He must comprehend t he Roman world through
unshaded eyes, s i nc e he s uf f e r s bl i ndness, not of l ove, but
of p o l i t i c a l regi ment at i on, H e Begins t o see when he t akes
a sideways gl ance which br i ngs him f ace t o f ace wi t h
f or t une and t he presence of t he soot hsayer.
Cr i t i c s di s agr ee over Antonyts i nt ens e r eact i on t o
t he f or t une he i s given. Some cl ai m he i s weakly super-
s t i t i o u s , ot he r s t h a t he i s merely l ooki ng f a r a v i s i b l e
excuse t o r e t ur n t o Egypt and Cl eopat ra. The reason,
however, seems c l e a r enough. Fortuna i s t he r ei gni ng
goddess, r es pons i bl e f o r t he rise and f a l l of men i n
p o l i t i c a l concerns, whose sway over Rome i s t o t a l , and it
does not pay t o mock her. Pompey, who vai nl y boas t s ,
P'om .
-
W e l l , I know not
What count s harsh f or t une c qs t s upon my f ace,
But i n my bosom s h a l l she never come,
To make my he a r t her vas s al .
(11, vi, 53-6)
r ef us es f or t une t s g i f t s and i s, we later l e a r n, murdered
f o r h i s mi scal cul at i on.
Antony i s s u f f i c i e n t l y aware of
her power t o ques t i on t he soot hsayer:
Ant. Say t o me,
m o s e f or t unes s h a l l rise hi gher , Ca. esarVs o r mine?
Sooth. Caesar' s.
=efore, 0 Antony, s t a y not by h i s s i de:
Thy demon, t h a t t hy s p i r i t which keeps t hee, i s
Noble, courageous, hi gh, unmatchable,
Where Caesar ' s is not . But near him, t hy angel
Becomes af ear d; a s bei ng oqerpower' d, t her ef or e
Make space enough between you.
(-11, iii, 14-22).
and t he d e f i n i t i v e r epl y i s credul ous enough t o f r i ght e n
him: "SpeaR t h i s no more " (11, iii, 22). Though he
caut i ons t he soot hsayer t o s i l e nc e , h i s eyes a r e opened.
H i s "Noble, courageous, hi gh, unmatchable " s p i r i t , on
which h i s her oi c s t a t ur e r e s t s , count s f o r not hi ng when
set a ga i ns t t he r i s e and f a l l of f or t une ' s wheel. To
r e t a i n t he val our of h i s ma r t i a l image, he must l eave
Rome. The di r e c t i on whlch h i s t hought s t ake a t t h i s
c r u c i a l moment i s nat ur al : "1' t he e a s t my pl easur e l i es, "
He f aces t h e di f f er ence between p o l i t i c a l marri age and t he
reuni on of Mars and Venus:
Ant.
- I w i l l t o Egypt:
And though I make t h i s marri age f or my peace,
r * t he e a s t my pl easur e lies.
A s i f t aki ng a cue from Antony, Cl eopat ra obl i gi ngl y
provi des us wi t h two concret e images of t he nat ur e of
"pl easure. " T t should be noted t h a t whi l e much has been
changing i n Rome, Cl eopat ra has, met aphori cal l y, s l e p t out
" t h i s ' g r e a t gap of time / My Antony i s away " (7, V,
5-6). Ant onyt s t ransformat i on i n t o an independent Mars has
bypassed her world, and s t i l l conf i dent of her powers she
I
capt ur es him i n dream images which cont i nue t o r e f l e c t t he
enchant r ess motif of A c t I. Di spl ayi ng her de s i r e f o r
s ens ual s a t i s f a c t i o n , she or der s , ,
Cleo. Give me some music; music, moody food
-
Of us t h a t t r a de i n love.
Agai nst t h i s background of l i c e nt i ous melody, s he
conj ur es pi c t ur e s of Antony made prey t o her magical
charms :
Cleo. Give me mine angl e, w e ' l l t o t he r i v e r t her e,
-
My music pl ayi ng f a r of f . I w i l l bet r ay
\
Tawny-finn'd f i s he s , my bended hook s h a l l pi er ce
Thei r sl i my jaws; and a s I draw them up,
1'11 t hi nk them every one an Antony,
And say "Ah, ha! y' a r e caught."
Hooked l i k e a f i s h on t he barbs of l ove, Antony i s Mars
ensl aved by a f a l l e n Venus.
Cl eopat ra makes t he poi nt
even more e x p l i c i t :
Cleo.
-
That time? 0 t i me s !
I l augh' d him out of pat i ence; and t h a t ni ght
I l augh' d him i n t o pat i ence, and next morn,
Ere t he ni nt h hour, I drank him t o h i s bed;
Then put my t i r e s and mant l es on him, whi l s t
E wore h i s sword Phi l i ppan,
(11, v, 18-23)
The exchange of cl ot hi ng, dr es s i ng Antony i n feminine
gar b and her s el f i n h i s masculine a t t i r e , is remi ni scent ,
though a mi sappl i cat i on, of t he doct r i ne t h a t ". . . Venus
i s not onl y j oi ned t o Mars but t h a t h i s nat ur e i s an e s s e n t i a l
p a r t of her own and vi ce versa. True f i e r c e ne s s i s t hus
conceived a s pot e nt i a l l y amiable, and t r u e ami abi l i t y a s
pot e nt i a l l y f i e r c e . "174 Y e t once agai n we a r e pr esent ed a
di s t or t e d image of an e s s e n t i a l t r ut h. On a mythia l e ve l ,
harmony i s achi eved when t he ma r t i a l as pect of Venus and
t he amorous as pect of Mars a r e i n a ki nd of bal ance. But
t he pi c t ur e Cl eopat ra pa i nt s does not show us l ove informed
by s t r engt h, nor s t r engt h tempered by l ove. It shows an
exchange merely, not an harmonious union.
The most f or c e f ul expressi on of t he f a l l e n nat ur e of
Antony and Cl eopat r al s l ove i s por t r ayed i n event s which
\
174~i nd, op. c i t . , p. 94.
surround t he b a t t l e of Ac t i u m. Much has t r s ns pi r e d duri ng
Antony' s absence from Egypt, y e t when t he l over s appear,
r euni t ed, t hey cont i nue t o r e f l e c t t he negqt i ve as pect s of
t he Venus / Mars union,
Though Antony has r e t r i e ve d h i s
ma r t i a l powers, he i s once more overpowered by Cl eopat ra,
a s i t u a t i o n which Enobarbus endeavours t o cor r ect :
Eno. - Your presence needs must puzzl e Antony,
Take from h i s he a r t , t ake from h i s br ai n, from' s
t i me,
What shoul d not be s par t d, H e i s al r eady
Traduct d f o r l e v i t y , and ' t i s s a i d i n Rome
That Phot i nus, an eunuch, and your maids
Manage t h i s war.
Nei t her Antony nor Cl eopat ra, however, w i l l l i s t e n t o
t he voi ce of reason. When l ove and war b a t t l e f o r t he
same ground, Antony chooses t he v i c t o r - t he triumph
of, Venus over Mars i s absol ut e. X t i s not y e t t he
triumph . of t he t r u e mystery where, we r e c a l l , t h e warring
i n s t i n c t s of Mars were tamed, l eavi ng h i s val our i n t a c t .
I ns t ead Antony has become "The noble r ui n of her magic"
(111, X, l 9 l t s t i l l enchanted by Cl eopat r a' s powers,
a def eat ed Mars who i s pai nf ul l y aware of h i s l o s s of
val our .
The excessi veness of t h e i r l ove c o s t s bot h Antony and
Cl eopqt ra t h e i r s t a t i o n s of r u l e over t he w ~ r l d , A s t hey
come t o r e a l i z e t h e i r def eat , we s ee t he deat h t hr oes of
t he myth which has harnessed t h e i r l ove f o r s o long. It
is a s though t he worst must be vent ed t o i t s l i m i t s bef or e
tt f ades t o make room f o r t he new. Cl eopat ra reaches t he
climax of her r o l e a s enchant r ess when Antony names her a
wi t ch who s h a l l d i e i n humi l i at i on f o r her bet r ayal :
Ant. Ah, thou s pe l l ! Avaunt!
-
Cleo. Why i s my l or d enragrd a ga i ns t h i s l ove?
-
Ant. vani sh, o r I s h a l l gi ve t hee t hy deservi ng,
-
And blemish Caesar ' s triumph. L e t him t ake t hee,
And h o i s t t hee up t o t he shout i ng pl ebei ans,
Follow h i s c ha r i a t , l i k e t he g r e a t e s t s pot
Of a l l t hy sex. Most monster-like be shown. . .
( I V, x i i , 30-36)
,
Antony succumkk t o r age, which i s t he l ogi c a l r e l e a s e of
h i s cour t s hi p of t he f e r oc i t y of Mars, t hroughout t he
pl ay. Si nce a l l r e s t r a i n t has vani shed, we s e e t he very
extreme of t he f a l l e n image of Venus and Mars, St r et ched
t o t he breaki ng poi nt , t he mythic pa t t e r n, which has h e l d
t h e i r l ove i n bondage, s h a t t e r s and f r e e s them t o begin
t he r econs t r uct i on of t he t r u e Venus / Mars union.
The mystery of t he Venus / Mars conj unct i on cannot
be f u l l y expressed a s long a s lintony and Cl eopat ra remain
I
p a r t of f or t une ' s world. I n both t he Renaissance and
Mediaeval cosmologies, For t una' s domain was r e s t r i c t e d
t o t he subl unary o r mutable sphere over which she rei gned.
Unt i l now her sway over Antony and Cl eopat ra has def i ned,
An a sense, t he c e i l i n g of pos s i bl e a c t i ons i n t h e i r
world. From now on t h e myth of Venus and Mars i n pe r f e c t
union chal l enges her l i m i t s . The i mper i s habi l i t y of t he
mythic l ove proposes a constancy which i s i n opposi t i on t o
For t une' s t ur ni ng wheel. I t i s a mystery which i s beyond
For t une' s gr as p and f r e e of her f i c k l e power, pl aced
cosmol ogi cal l y i n t he immutable regi on above t he moon.
175
Y e t Fort una i s a pr es i di ng f or ce t hroughout Antony and
Cl eopat ra and any at t empt t o c r e a t e a mystery of l ove
which t r anscends he r mutable powers i s doomed t o f a i l u r e .
Antony and Cl eopat ra must l eave her subl unary world t o
reach t h e di vi ne expr essi on of t h e i r union. 1ndeed t h i s i s
what happens a s t he pl ay proceeds t o a cl os e.
Recognizing t he t r a ns i t or y nat ur e of h i s own bei ng,
Antony comments on t he mut abi l i t y of mundane event s a s t he
world sl owl y di s s ol ves and changes bef or e h i s eyes:
175"~hough t h e e a r t h pays homage t o Fort une ' s f i c kl e ne s s
and men a s bl i nd a s be e t l e s advance her wheel, t he heavens
a r e not s ubj e c t t o her but surmount a l l her changes and
chances. " Chew, op. c i t . , p. 57.
Ant. Sometimes we see a cl oud t h a t ' s dr agoni sh,
-
A yapour sometime, l i k e a bear , o r l i o n ,
A t ower ' d c i t a d e l , a pendent r ock,
A f or ked mount ai n, o r bl ue promontory
With t r e e s upon ' t , t h a t nod unt o t he worl d,
And mock our eyes wi t h ai r . Thou h a s t seen t hes e
s i gns ,
They are bl ack ve s pe r ' s pageant s.
Ay, my l or d.
Ant. That which i s now a hor s e, even wi t h a t hought
me r ack di s l i mns , and makes it i n d i s t i n c t
A s wat er i s i n water.
(.IV, xi v, 2-11)
Cl eopat r a makes t h e same r ecogni t i on, even more f or t hr i ght l y,
chal l engi ng For t una' s power wi t hout r es er vat i on:
Cleo. No , l e t me speak, and l et me r a i l s o hi gh,
That t h e f a l s e huswi fe For t une break her wheel,
Provok' d by my of f ence.
(.IV, xv, 43-5)
With t he s e c a s t i g a t i o n s of f or t une, bot h l ove r s metaphor-
i c a l l y t r ans cend t h e domain of mut a bi l i t y and pr epar e t o
l eave t he mundane s pher e behi nd as t hey approach t h e i r
deat hs .
A t t h e edge of l i f e t hey a r e f i n a l l y f r e e t o r e ve a l
t he myst ery which l e a ds t o t he i me r i s h a b l e harmony of
Venus and Mars. Antony, though st i l l t he ar dent l over of
t he openi ng scene of t h e pl ay, has r egai ned h i s l o s t
va l our :
.
Ant.
-
Peace !
Not Caes ar ' s val our hat h over t hr own Antony,
B.ut Ant ony' s ha t h t r i umph' d on hi ms el f .
No l onger s u b j e c t t o Caesar's f or t une , nor conquered by
e a r t h l y pl eas ur e, he i s a t l a s t f r e e t o expr es s h i s
val our An uni on wi t h Venus. H e br i ngs h i s g i f t of
val our as a t oken of l ove t o Cl eopat r a, whi l e s he, per haps
s i gni f yi ng t h e a s c e nt of remeatio, h o i s t s him t o t h e t o p
of her monument , 176 awardi ng t he v i c t o r i o u s Mars h i s
pl a c e i n t ri umph. Thus Antony achi eves , be f or e h i s deat h,
t h e image of Mars t h a t Veronese c e l e br a t e d i n h i s pa i nt i ng
of "Mars and Venus " - t h e p e r f e c t warrior whose l ove
i nf or ms h i s s t r e ngt h.
177
Le f t t o l ament her l o s s of Antony, Cl eopat r a openl y
chances hubr i s , hol di ng back not hi ng. Li ke Venus a t t he
l o s s of doni is, s he cries:
Cleo. My de s ol a t i on does begi n t o make
A b e t t e r l i f e : vtis p a l t r y t o be Caesar:
Not bei ng For t une, h e ' s but For t une' s knave,
A mi ni s t e r of h e r w i l l : and it i s g r e a t
To do t h a t t hi ng t h a t ends a l l ot he r deeds,
Which s hackl es acci dent s , and b o l t s up change;
Which s l e e ps , and never p a l a t e s more t h e dung,
The beggar ' s nur s e, and Caes ar ' s .
(V, ii, 1-8)
An out l aw i n love, Cl eopat r a metamorphoses h e r s e l f i n t o an
image of Venus, which complements Ant ony' s f i n a l por t r a ya l of
176~r a nc e s Yates, The A r t of Memory (London: outl ledge ii
Kegan Paul , 1966) , p. 365. ,
Mars. She reaches f o r t he constancy which is t h e t r u e
form of t he Venus / Mars union, above f or t une and t he
moon :
Cleo.
-
now from head t o f o o t
I am marble const ant : now t h e f l e e t i n g moon
No pl a ne t i s of mine.
(V, ii, 238-40)
She expr esses a l ongi ng f o r mys t i cal union o r marri age,
i n al chemi cal imagery where t he s p i r i t i s di vi ded from
t he dross. I t i s her moment of remeat i o, of conversi on
and as cent , where a i r and f i r e rise t o l eave bas er
el ement s of e a r t h and wat er a t lower l e ve l s :
Cleo.
-
Husband I come:
Now t o t h a t name, my courage prove t he t i t l e!
I am f i r e , and ai r ; my ot her el ement s
I gi ve t o baser l i f e .
(V, ii, 286-89)
At ' t h e moment of her deat h she i s once more c a l l e d by
t he name of' t h e goddess whose f i gur a she w i l l become
a f t e r deat h: "0 e a s t e r n st ar!" (V, ii, 307) - t he
d
s t a r of Venus.
178
Both Antony and Cl eopat ra embrace deat h a s t h e i r new
mani f est at i ons demand. Antony , a Mars tempered by Venus,
seeks l ove i n h i s vi s i on of deat h:
Ant . But I w i l l be
-
A bridegroom i n my deat h, and run i n t o ' t
A s t o a l ove r ' s bed.
( I V, xi v, 99-101)
Cl eopat ra correspondi ngl y expr esses s t r e ngt h i n her
r es ol ut i on t o di e:
Cleo. W e ' l l bury him: and t hen, what ' s brave, what ' s
-
nobl e,
Let ' s do it a f t e r t he hi gh Roman f ashi on,
And make deat h proud t o t ake us.
( I V, xv, 86-88).
Though cheat ed of t he means t o end he r l i f e i n " t he hi gh
Roman f ashi on" s he de s i r e s , s he achi eves t h e di gni t y which
belongs t o Venus r e s t r a i ne d by Mars:
Caes. Bravest a t t he l a s t ,
She l e v e l l ' d a l l our purposes, and bei ng r oya l
Took her own way: . . .
(V, ii, 333-5)
Though we have been a bl e t o wi t ness t h e t r ansf or mat i ons of
a f a l l e n Venus and a f a l l e n Mars i n t o t h e i r t r u e f i gur at i ons ,
we cannot f ol l ow t h e i r course t o an i mperi shabl e union. A
mystery beyond t h e conf i nes of t h e i r world, it i s a l s o
beyond our s a s audience. We can onl y imagine t he harmony
which bot h Antony and Cl eopat ra des cr i be a s t h e i r f i n a l and
e t e r n a l condi t i on. For Antony, t h i s i s a ki nd of par adi se,
a l and of s oul s where l over s walk hand i n hand amidst t he
fl owers of s pr i ng:
Ant. Eros! -
-
I come, my queen: - Eros! - s t a y
f o r me,
Where s oul s do couch on f l ower s, we ' l l hand i n hahd,
And wi t h our s pr i ght l y por t make t he ghos t s gaze:
Dido, and Aeneas, s h a l l want t r oops,
And a l l t he haunt be ours. Come, Eros, Eros!
( I V, xi v, 50-54)
Cl eopat ra r e c a l l s her f i r s t meeting wi t h Antony, when
she appeared a s t h e t r u e Venus a t t h e b i r t h of t h e i r l ove:
"I am agai n f o r Cydnus, t o meet Mark Antony " (V, ii, 227- 8) .
These a r e t he s i gns l e f t by t h e l over s which we must use t o
fol l ow them, i n our i magi nat i ons, t o t h e heavenly spheres
where t he t r u e union of Venus and Mars ~ h i n e s cons t ant l y.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Al l an, Donald Cameron, "On Venus and Adoni s, " El i zabet han
and Jacobean St udi e s ( Fol c r of t , Penn.: Fo l c r o f t
Pr . , 1959) .
Andrea A l i c a t i and is' Book of Emblems, bi ogr aphi cal and
bi bl i ogr a phi c a l s t udy by Henry Green ( New York: Bur t
Fr ankl i n; o r i g i n a l l y publ i shed i n London, 1872) .
Apul ei us, The Golden A s s , t r a ns . i n t o Engl i s h by Robert
Graves (New York: Fa r r a r , St r a us & Gi roux, 1951, 1971) .
Bayl ey, Harold, The Lost Language of Symbolism ( New York:
Barnes & Noble, 1968) .
Boet hi us, The Consol at i on of Phi l osophy, t r a ns . E. V. Watts,
(Pengui n Books, 1969) .
Bonj our, Adr i en, "From Shakespear e' s Venus t o Cl eopat r a' s
Cupi ds, " S h a k e ~ p e ' ~ r e ' Survey XV (1962) 73-80.
Bradbrook, M. C. , Shakespeare and El i zabet han Poet r y
(London: Chat t o and Windus, 1 9 6 5 ) .
Brown, John Rus s el , ed. , Shakespeare, Antony and Cl eopat r a ,
A Se l e c t i on of Cr i t i cal Essays (London: Macmillan, 1968) .
Bruno, Gi ordano, The Heroi c Fr enzi es , t r a ns . Paul Eugene
Memrno Jr. (Chapel H i l l : Univ. of Car ol i na Pr . , 1964) .
Bush, Dougl as, Mythology and t he Renai ssance Tr a di t i on i n
Engl i s h Poe t r y ( New York: W. W. Nort on, 1963) .
Calderwood, James, "A Midsummer-Night's Dr e a m: The I l l u s i o n
of Dr a ma , 'I Modern Language Quar t er l y XXVI (1965) 506-22.
Car t ar i , Vi ncenzo, The Fount ai ne of Anci ent Fi c t i o n ( 1599) , t r a ns .
Ri char d Li nche (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Uni ver s i t y Mi crofl i ms.
Cassirer, Er ns t , Language and Myth ( New York: Harper & Br os. ,
1946) .
L
, The Pl a t o n i c Renai ssance i n Engl and, t r a ns . J. P.
Pet t egr ove ( New York: Gordi an Pr . , 1970) .
Ca s t i gl i one , The Book of t h e Cour t i e r , t r a ns . George Bul l ,
(Penguin Books, 1967) .
Charney, Mauri ce, Shakes pear el s Roman Pl ays: The Funct i on
of Imagery i n t h e Drama (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Univ. Pr . , 1961) .
Chew, Samuel C. , The Pi l gr i mage of Li f e (New Haven, Conn. :
Yale Univ. Pr . , 1962) .
Cody, Ri chard, The Landscape of t h e Mind (London: Cl arendon
Pr . , 1969) .
Curry, Walter Cl yde, Shakespear e' s Phi l os ophi cal Pa t t e r ns ,
( Loui si ana: Loui si ana S t a t e Univ. Pr . , 1937, 1959) .
Dante Al i ghi e r i , The Di vi ne Comedy, 3 Vol s. , t r a ns . Montgomery
Dorothy L. Sayer s (Penguin Books, 1955, 1972) .
de Rougemont, Deni s, Love i n t h e West ern World, t r a ns .
Montgomery Bel gi on ( New York: Harper Colophon, 1940, 1974).
Dickey, Fr ankl i n M., Not Wi sel y But Too W e l l (San Marino,
Cal i f . : The ~ u n t i n g t o n Li br ar y, 1957) .
El l r o d t , Rober t , Neopl at oni sm i n t h e Poet r y of Spenser (Geneva:
Li b r a i r e E. Droz, 1960) .
Erasmus, Des i der i us , I n Pr a i s e of Fol l y, t r a ns . Bet t y Radi ce,
(Penguin Books, 1971, 1973) .
Fi s ch, Harol d, "Antony and Cl eopat r a: The Li mi t s of Mythology,"
Shakespeare Survey X X I I I (1970) 59-67.
Fr azer , S i r James George, The Golden Bough, 2 Vol s. , ( New York:
Fol c r of t Pr . , 1959, 1' 969).
Graves, Rober t , The Greek Myths, 2 Vol s. , (Pemguin Books, 1955,
1964) .
Green, Henry, Shakespear e and t he Emblem Writers (New York
Bur t Fr ankl i n, ~ 1 8 6 9 ) .
Har r i son, J ane El l e n, Prolegomena t o t h e St udy of Greek
Rel i ai on ( ~e w York: Meri di an Books. 1955) .
Henze, Ri char d, ''A Midsummer-Night's Dr e a m: Analogous Image,"
Shakesweare St udi e s VI T (1974) 115-123,
Hui zi nga, J.,' Homo Ludens (Bost on, Mass.: Beacon Pr . , 1950) .
Jahn, J. D. , "The Lamb of Lust : The Role of Adonis i n
Shakespear e' s Venus and Adoni s, " Shakespear e St udi e s
vr (1970) 17-24.
Jung, C. G. , and C. Kerenyi , Essays on a Sci ence of Mythology,
t r a ns . R. F. C. Hul l , Bol l i ngen S e r i e s XXII ( Pr i ncet on:
Pr i ncet on Univ. Pr . , 1949, 1969) .
, Psyche and Symbol: A s e l e c t i o n from t h e Wr i t i ngs
of C. G. Jung, ed. V i o l e t S. de Laszl o (New York:
Douhleday & Co. , 1958) .
Kni ght , G. Wi l son, The I mper i al Theme (London: Oxford Univ.
Pr . , 1932; r e pr i nt e d by Methuen & Co. , 1963) .
Kristeller, Paul Oskar, Renai ssance Thought (New York:
Harper Torchbooks, 1961) .
Latham, M. W. , The El i zabet han F a i r i e s ( New York: Columbia
Univ. Pr . , 1930) .
Lever, J. W. , "Venus and t h e Second Chance," Shakespear e
Survey XV (1962) 81-88.
Lewis, C. S., The Di scarded Image (Cambridge Univ. Pr . , 1970) .
Ll oyd, Mi chael , "Antony and t h e Ga me of Chance," J our na l of
Engl i s h and Germanic Phi l ol ogy LXI (1962) 5413-554.
, "Cl eopat r a as Isis," Shakespear e Survey X I 1 (1959)
88-94.
Lovejoy, Ar t hur O. , The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Univ. Pr . , 1933) .
Lyons, Char l es R. , Shakespear e and t h e Ambiguity of Love' s
Triumph (The Hague: Mouton, 1971) .
Markel s, J u l i a n , The P i l l a r of t h e World (Ohio S t a t e Univ. Pr . ,
1968) .
McPeek, James A. S. , "The Psyche Myth and A ids summer-Night's
Dr e a m, " Shakespeare Qu a r t e r l y XXXrI (1972) 69-79.
Mi randol a, Pi co d e l l a , Or at i on on t h e Di gni t y of Man, t r a ns .
Robert Camponigri (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1956, 1967) .
Narrative and D r a m a t i c Sour ces of Shakespear e, Vo l . I ,
Geof f r ey Bul l ough ed. (London:Routledge & Kegan Paul , 1957) .
Nel son, John C. , The Renai ssance Theory of Love ( New York:
Columbia Univ. Pr . , 1955) .
Ol son, Char l es , The Spe c i a l Vi e w of Hi s t or y ( Ber kel ey, Ca l i f . :
Oyez, 1970) .
Ovid, Love Poems of Ovid, t r a ns . Horace Gregory ( Ne w York:
Mentor Books, 1964) .
, Metamorphoses, t r a ns . Ar t hur Gol di ng, ed. John F.
N i ms (New York: Macmillan, 1965) .
, Metamor hoses, t r a ns . Mary M. I nnes (Pengui n Books,
1955-
Panofsky, Erwin, St udi e s i n I conol ogy (London: Oxford Univ.
Pr . , 1939, 1967) .
Pat ch, H. R:, The Goddess For t una i n Medi aeval Li t e r a t u r e
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Unlv. Pr . , 1927) .
The Ot her World (New York: Octagon Books,
Pear son, Lu Emily, El i zabet han Love Convent i ons ( New York:
Barnes & Noble, 1933) .
Pl a t o, The Republ i c of Pl a t o, t r a ns . Fr anci s M. cor nf or d,
(London:. Oxt ord Univ. Pr . , 1945, 1964) .
, The Di al ogues of Pl a t o, t r a n s . Benjamin Jowett,
Vo l . T I (London: Spher e Books, 1970) .
Pl ot i nus , The Enneads, t r a ns . St ephen Mackenna (London:
Faber & Faber , 1930) .
Pound, E z r a , The S p i r i t of Romance (New York: New Di r ect i ons ,
1952, 1968) .
Pr i c e , Hereward T., "Funct i on of Imagery i n Venus and Adoni s, "
Paper s of t h e Michigan Academy of Science., Arts and
Le t t e r s XXXI (1945) 227-296.
Put ney, Rufus, "Venus and Adonis: Amor wi t h Humor , " a hi lo logical
Qua r t e r l y XX, no.4 ( Oc t . , 1941) 534-548.
Schanzer , Er ne s t , The Problem Pl ays of Shakespear e ( New York:
Schocken Books, 1963) .
Seznec, J ean, The Sur vi val of t he Pagan Gods, t r a ns . Barbara
F. Ses s i ons , Bol l i ngen Se r i e s XXXVI I I ( Pr i ncet on, N. J . :
Pr i ncet on Univ. Pr . , 1953, 1972) .
Shakespear e, W i l l i a m , Antony and Cl eopat r a, Arden Edi t i on,
ed. M. R. Ri dl ey (London: Methuen & Co. , 1965) .
, Arden Edi t i on of t h e Works of Shakespeare: The
Poems, ed. F. T. Pr i c e (London: Methuen & Co., 1961) .
A Midsummer-Night's Dr e a m, ed. St anl ey W e l l s
(Pengui n Books, 1967) .
, The New Shakespeare: A Midsummer-Night' s Dr e a m,
ed. S i r Ar t hur Qui l l er - Couch and John Dover Wilson
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr . , 1971) .
, A New Variorum Edi t i on of Shakespeare: A Midsumrner-
Ni ght ' s Dr e a m, ed. H. H. Fur ness ( New York: Dover
Publ i c a t i ons , 1963) .
, The New Variorum Edi t i on of Shakespeare: The Poems,
' ed. H. E. Rol l i ns ( Phi l adel phi a and London: 1938) .
Spenser , Books I and I1 of The Fa e r i e Queene, Rober t Kel l ogg
and Ol i ver St e e l e , eds . ( New York: Odyssey Pr . , 1965) .
Tr a c i , P h i l i p J., The Love Pl ay of Antony and Cl eopat r a
(The Hague: Mouton & Co. , 1970) .
Tr a ve r s i , D. A. , An Approach t o Shakespear e, 3rd. ed. , r ev. ,
( New York : Doubleday, 1969) .
Toulmin, St ephen, and J ane Goodfellow, The Fa br i c of t h e
Heavens (London: Hut chi nson & Co. , 1961) .
Vyvyan, John, Shakespear e and Pl a t oni c Beaut y (Londolu
Chat t o and Windus, 1970) .
Waddington, Raymond B. , "Antony and Cl eopat r a: What Venus
d i d wi t h Mars," Shakespeare St udi es TI (1966) 210-227.
Waith, Eugene M. , The Hercul ean He r o (London: Chat t o and
Windus, 1962) .
Wallis, R. T. , Neopl at oni sm (London: Duckworth, 1972) .
W e s t , Robert H. , Shakespeare and The Out er Mystery ( ~ e x i n g t o n :
Univ. of Kentucky Pr . , 1968) .
Wi l l i amson, Mar i l yn, "For t une i n Antony and Cl eopat r a, "
J our na l of Engl i sh and Germanic Phi l ol ogy LXVII (1968)
423-429.
Wind, Edgar, Pagan Myst er i es i n t h e Renai ssance (London:
Faber & Faber , 1958) .
Yates, Fr ances, The A r t of Memory (London: Rout l edge & Kegan
Paul , 1966) .
, Gi ordano Bruno and t h e H e r m e t i c Tr a di t i on (Chi cago,
111.: Univ. of Chi cago Pr . , 1964) .
Young, David P., Something of Great Const ancy, (New Haven,
Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr . , 1966) .
Zimbardo, R, A, , "Regener at i on and Re c onc i l l i a t i on i n
A Midsummer-Night's Dr e a m, " Shakespear e St udi e s V I
(1970) 35-50.