On this page you’ll find discussions of the appearance of classical themes in more ‘modern’ drama. Feel free to add your own, using the Contact link.
Plays discussed on this page:
Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe
An Inspector Calls by J.B. Priestley
A View from the Bridge by Arthur Miller
An Inspector Calls by J.B. Priestley
Macbeth
Macbeth
Henry VI Part III
Hamlet
Henry VI Part I
Hamlet
Othello
Macbeth
Antony and Cleopatra
Timon of Athens
Julius Caesar
Romeo and Juliet
Macbeth
Titus Andronicus
Cymbeline
Titus Andronicus
Romeo and Juliet
The Tempest
Macbeth
Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe
Reference: Helen of Troy
Level: Overt
Description: Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus is a play that seems to reject and embrace religion simultaneously. On the one hand, there is a message that the acceptance of the world as cited by religion is inaccurate, and therefore, religion is a restrictive force. On the other hand, it is a religious figure that entices Faustus, leading him to his final destination (Hell), which therefore confirms the existence of God. But God seems to be a deity that is incongruous alongside the scientific world that Faustus (and perhaps Marlowe) wants to understand.
The ‘unclassifiable’ nature of the play’s morality and religion is echoed in the eponymous character’s own facets. On the one hand he is the Renaissance man, a true sapient homo who knows that the mysteries of the universe lie outside of the books and the accepted scientific/religious wisdom of his day. Faustus rejects dogma and embraces the surges of energy that are given off by his enquiring mind. However, his character becomes as dogmatic about his own fate as he was about the teachings that he rejected at the start of the tragedy. He refuses to repent (and thus save his soul) as he sees retreat or rejection from his own long-held views as a sign of weakness. Despite all of his academic learning, both in the real world and the metaphysical, Faustus is still just a stereotypically stubborn man.
This stereotypical behaviour is seen further in his desire to be with Helen of Troy; Faustus conjures her image to appear in-front of his students as a way of ‘showing-off’. Later, he begins to contemplate the need to ask for forgiveness for his sins, an action, which he has been assured will grant him mercy in the afterlife. However, lust takes over his brain and his desire to be with Helen makes him stray once more from the path of Christian morality. Despite all of his academic learning and his intellectual prowess, Faustus succumbs to his baser instincts and decides to use his considerable powers for his own salacious fulfilment. In this way, Helen of Troy maintains her role as the seductress of men who carelessly seduces them to their doom. And, she also maintains her position in the literary canon as an ‘object’ to be discussed, rather than a person to be heard. The story of the ‘great man’ brought low by his inability to control his desires is still a ‘story of our times’, as is the inferred subtext/myth/lie that in some way, it was all ‘Helen’s’ fault.
Contributor: David Hogg
An Inspector Calls by J.B. Priestley
Reference: The Titans
Level: Inferred
Description: This entry is one for the English teachers out there… I know that J. B. Priestley is beholden to the name of the famous ocean-liner that sunk on its maiden voyage (The Titanic) and therefore, his reference is to the ship rather than the Titans. However, the ship is allegorically important and its significance in the play can be amplified further if teachers spend time thinking about the Classical nature of its name. The Titanic was meant to be a modernist masterpiece and show the world that man was the true master of this planet, replacing God and taming nature. And what better way to prove your industrial powers than to give your symbol of progress a godly name? However, students should be encouraged to look up what happens to the Titans – once they find this out, they will perhaps start to see the folly of naming the ship after them.
In the play, the name and the ship itself become an excellent example of hubris and students should be encouraged to keep linking the arrogance of the ship’s name to the fall of the Birling household and to the future sinking of capitalism. The arrogant capitalist Birling states, “this is one of the happiest nights of my life.” before he hits his own ice-berg in the form of Eva Smith. The Titanic shows us that ‘Man’ must remember that he is not a god. If he does this, he may discover his humanity and find ways to care for other people, as opposed to ‘ingesting’ those around him for personal gain. In mythology, the Titans were taught a lesson by those that they oppressed and Priestley’s message is the same, “if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish”.
Contributor: David Hogg
A View from the Bridge by Arthur Miller
Reference: Greek Chorus
Level: Implied
Description: The lawyer Alfieri is the Chorus in this modern tragedy. He pops in and pops out of the narrative giving the audience ideas about what has happened, what will happen and what he thinks about the happenings. He also draws a link between ‘now’ and the Classical past in his opening speech when he states, ‘in some Caesar’s year’. There is also an old woman who performs the role of an ‘oracle’; Alfieri is so worried about Eddie that he goes to speak to this wise old woman but her advice is to simply pray for Eddie. She knows how this story ends and her wisdom seems like a prophecy to the audience.
Eddie is the tragic character whose hamartia leads spectacularly to his downfall. Miller has mined the Classical idea of tragedy brilliantly in this play. He has made Eddie a complex character and it can be hard for us to pinpoint exactly what his flaw is: is it his masculinity? A repressed homosexuality? Or his inappropriate feelings for Catherine? There is no definite answer to this question, but his downfall is definitely tragic.
Contributor: David Hogg
An Inspector Calls by J.B. Priestley
Reference: Plato (The Allegory of the Cave)
Level: Inferred
Description: The Inspector has come to the Birling household to shine a light on their behaviour. The first stage directions state, “The lighting should be pink and intimate until the INSPECTOR arrives and then it should be brighter and harder.” The Birlings are living in their comfortable ‘cave’, shut off from the outside world and are not interested in the truth. That is until the Inspector reveals the consequences of their actions and the ‘cave-dwellers’ need to make a choice: do they follow this new ‘prophet’ or do they chase him out and carry on with their lives in ignorant bliss? It is this decision which forms the basis of the drama in this play.
There is a moment when it seems that Gerald is going to make the ‘leap of faith’ – he ‘leaves the cave’ and goes for a walk. Disappointingly, he doesn’t like what he sees in the real-world and runs back to the safety of the Birling house – back to ignorance. Sheila on the other hand is prepared to believe that what she currently ‘knows’ is a lie and that the truth is something that she needs to search for. The split in the family at the end is a chasm formed between those that believe in the truth and those that believe their version of the truth. Absolute truth is not absolutely easy (see the Flatland reference in Novels), and both Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and Priestley’s masterpiece demonstrate the bravery needed not only to go forth into the light, but also to bring it back and show it to everyone else.
Macbeth
Reference: The Aeneid by Virgil
Level: Inferred
Description: There is a popular misconception that Shakespeare was apolitical in his plays, but like Virgil, Shakespeare knew who was paying his bills – King James I was Shakespeare’s patron in the later stages of his career. Subsequently, if you know where to look, you can see the influence of King James I in the Bard’s plays.
One of the places where the King’s influence is most overtly seen (yet is often glossed-over by modern audiences and productions), is when Macbeth visits the Witches for a second time in order to find out more about his fate. The Witches present Macbeth with, what appears to be good news (no man born form a woman can kill him, etc.), but he is then shown a final image – a procession of future kings. It is a bizarre piece of time-bending by Shakespeare; the Jacobean audience were expected to recognise within the kings a line of succession drawn from Banquo to their current monarch – James I; this is propaganda by Shakespeare, along the lines of ‘James I is the rightful ruler of England and Scotland, history proves it (in my Macbeth play), so let’s have no more of this gunpowder plot nonsense’. For the character of Macbeth, it is a damning vision – he will have no heirs and Banquo’s happiness (in heaven) will be greater than Macbeth’s (on Earth and in hell). Macbeth is not the rightful king – Banquo’s heirs are. James I traced his own lineage back to the real Banquo, this James I is shown as the rightful heir to the throne bizarrely through Macbeth’s visions.
A ‘contemporary present’ being used as a vision of the future in a piece of drama set in the past was also used to establish the legitimacy of another controversial ruler; it is an idea that Shakespeare lifted directly from Virgil’s Aeneid Book VI. In this part of his epic masterpiece, Virgil places Aeneas in The Underworld, where he receives affirmation of his quest from his father (and also gets a small attack of the guilts when he sees Dido). Anchises, (the father of Aeneas) demonstrates how important it is for Aeneas to continue his journey and establish a lineage that will eventually lead to the foundation of Rome and he does this by showing Aeneas visions of the future. Paradoxically, these ‘visions of the future’ would have been past history for Virgil’s contemporary audience. In the visions, Anchises essentially shows Aeneas the ‘Greatest Hits’ of Roman men, including Romulus, The Gracchi, the Scipios, Julius Caesar and the nephew of Augustus – Marcellus. The visions are meant to show the Roman readers that Augustus (Virgil’s patron) can trace his own lineage back to the demi-god Aeneas and thus Augustus’ has a divine right-to-rule.
Like James I, the rule of Augustus was not a fait accompli in the eyes of his subjects. Republicans wanted the full power of the senate reinstated and the re-establishment of the Republican ideal never fully went away. Therefore Augustus speaks to his people through Virgil’s words, as James I did through Shakespeare, reminding them all who is in charge via a convenient prophecy that has already occurred in real-life. It is dramatic irony without the irony.
Augustus was paying Virgil’s wages and it is clear that both Virgil and Shakespeare knew how to flatter those that needed flattering.
Contributor: David Hogg
Macbeth
Reference: Bellona
Level: Overt
Description: In Act I Sc II, Ross is relaying his account of the hurlyburly of the battle to King Duncan and says that Macbeth fought as “Bellona’s bridegroom”. It is easy to think that Ross is paying Macbeth a compliment, praising his fighting valour and skill. Bellona is the Roman Goddess of War and is the wife of Mars – thus Macbeth is being referred to as the God of War. This is surely a gracious title for a warrior such as the Thane of Glamis? Macbeth was heroic and turned the tide of the battle, so being “Bellona’s bridegroom” would seem to make sense. However, based on what follows in the play, it could be viewed as a comment that contains negative connotations. Why did Ross not refer to Macbeth as Mars?
By not directly labelling Macbeth as the God, it feels as though Ross has reduced the importance of Mars and diminished his strength in comparison to his wife Bellona, and thus the deification of Macbeth has in fact become a back-handed compliment. Consider the labelling of David Beckham as ‘Victoria Beckham’s husband’ when discussing his football career; Beckham is no longer the subject of the sentence – his wife is, and thus, he becomes a passenger in the imagery, a passive bystander.
What happens in the following scenes between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth definitely demonstrates the negative potential of the name – she is the power and he serves her. Macbeth clearly expresses a desire not to kill Duncan, but she convinces him that this would make him a man who is worthy to be her bridegroom and this persuades the noble Macbeth to commit regicide.
Perhaps Ross knew in his subconscious that Macbeth was not the man that everybody thought he was. Therefore, when given the chance to assign him a deity, Ross stopped one step short and assigned a description to Macbeth’s wife instead. Lady Macbeth certainly wears the title of Bellona well.
Contributor: David Hogg
Henry VI Part III
Reference: Amazons
Level: Overt
Description: The character of Queen Margaret across the Henry VI trilogy is one of Shakespeare’s great inventions and yet she is hardly ever discussed – Lady Macbeth hogs all of the ‘Shakespeare female character’ limelight. Yet, as the character grows across the three plays, you cannot help but feel that without Queen Margaret, there is no Lady Macbeth. It is possible to argue that Queen Margaret is an even more developed character than Lady Macbeth; she is given more space to grow across the plays and experiences a range of highs and lows that alters her trajectory several times. Perhaps her strongest trait is her ability to instil fear amongst the men in her world. Lady Macbeth only ever frightened Macbeth, whereas Queen Margaret is feared by Dukes, Earls and Kings – quite a feat in a series of plays that demonstrates the bloodlust inherent in overly-ambitious men. It is the power that she yields and the fear that she generates that gets her labelled an Amazonian twice.
In Act I Sc IV, Margaret has captured the Duke of York and after mocking him with a paper crown and ‘cleaning’ his face with a handkerchief smeared with the blood of his murdered son, the Duke says, “She-wolf of France, but worse than wolves of France, whose tongue more poisons than an adder’s tooth! How ill-beseeming is it in thy sex to triumph, like an Amazonian trull, upon their woes whom Fortune captivates.” In his moment of despair, the Duke of York gives Margaret the full force of his disdain and yet the use of the word ‘Amazonian’ is essentially a compliment. This formerly frail girl has evolved into a mythical warrior, capable of propping up kings and bringing down dissenters. Clearly, such a woman is not to be idealised in the time a Shakespeare; York does not mean this to be a positive image in any way. Just to make sure that we are clear that York thinks only a certain type of woman can hold this much sway, York places ‘trull’ straight after ‘Amazonian’, which is an archaic word for prostitute. It seems that a woman cannot be this powerful and remain morally virtuous. Shakespeare had his Margaret conduct an affair with the Duke of Suffolk (an affair for which there was no evidence), as if to prove that calculated power and licentious behaviour in a woman go hand-in-hand. What would Queen Elizabeth I have thought about such a summation?
In Act IV Scene I when the Yorkists have found themselves in the ascendency, Prince Edward mocks Margaret when he hears that she is putting on armour to confront him and states, “Belike she minds to play the Amazon.” Here the comparison has taken on the tone of a joke. Women cannot be soldiers; if they don armour, they are simply ‘playing’. When the Duke of York was calling her an Amazon he was under no illusions as to her danger, but now, in relative safety, Edward feels confident enough to belittle her actions. Again it is worth pondering what Queen Elizabeth I would have thought about Queen Margaret being accused of ‘playing’ when wearing armour – this of course being something that Elizabeth did when the Spanish Armada attempted to invade England.
And so across these two quotes we find a negative presentation of strong female characteristics. If a woman is ruthless and gains power, she is an Amazonian whore and if she is prepared to fight to the death to hold onto that power, she is simply playing dress-up. It is worth noting the distance between Edward and Margaret when he uses this barb. Would he have been brave enough to say it to the Amazonian’s face?
Contributor: David Hogg
Hamlet
Reference: Pyrrhus, Priam, Aeneas, Virgil, The Aeneid
Level: Overt
Description: In Act II Scene II, Hamlet meets ‘The Players’, the actors who he will use to test his uncle’s guilt during a performance of The Murder of Gonzago. Before they perform this, Hamlet tests their skills by asking them to enact a speech he once saw – it is a scene from Book II of Virgil’s Aeneid. In the scene performed by the players, Pyrrhus (the son of Achilles) kills Priam (the King of Troy). As Priam is essentially a syndoche for Troy, when Pyrrhus kills him, he is essentially ending the Trojan War and destroying the great city of Troy. In The Aeneid, this story is being told by the protagonist (Aeneas) to Dido (Queen of Carthage), a woman that he is trying to impress for various reasons, but also a woman who is delaying him from his destiny – the foundation of a new home in Italy for his Trojan refugees, which will eventually lead to the emergence of Rome. It is a very interesting scene for Hamlet to choose to see and its significance can be seen in several layers of meaning. Shakespeare was certainly trying to give a message to his audience, but the ambiguity of that message is what makes it so fascinating.
The best way to examine this is to focus on each of the 3 men that are involved in this scene (Aeneas, Priam and Pyrrhus) and try to see their significance in relation to the character of Hamlet.
If Hamlet is Aeneas, then he sees himself as something of a hero with a mission for the greater good. Aeneas was chosen by Venus to found Rome and Hamlet was chosen by the ghost of his father to avenge his death and set up a new Danish dynasty. In the scene used in Hamlet, Aeneas is narrating the events to Dido, who is ultimately a distraction to his mission. In fact she is another obstacle that needs to be overcome. Therefore, if Hamlet sees himself as Aeneas, perhaps he also sees Ophelia as his Dido – an encumbrance that needs to be removed. Subconsciously Hamlet chose this scene because he needed to be reminded once again of his destiny and what he needs to do if he is ever going to achieve it and become a hero.
Alternately, if Hamlet sees Priam as being the main thrust of this narrative, it is easy to see how Priam is Hamlet’s murdered father. The narrated scene is so bloody that if Hamlet pictures Priam’s death as representing his father’s, it would surely have helped him to gird his loins in preparation for confronting his uncle. Priam was innocent and is clearly the victim of a heinous crime that was never his fault and thus, Hamlet can feel justified in exacting his revenge without having to worry about his conscience. Perhaps it is also possible that Hamlet views himself as Priam and knows that he is going to do something that will ‘kill’ who he truly is – when Priam dies, Pyrrhus is left and this could be the distinction between pre-revenge Hamlet and post-revenge Hamlet. Hamlet’s death in this instance is not literal, but more the losing of his innocence as the brutality of the real world enters his ‘palace’ and bloodies it forever; it is a metaphor for his need to ‘be a man’.
Finally, if Hamlet sees himself as Pyrrhus, we have a very interesting contradiction. Firstly, Pyrrhus was asked by his father’s ghost (Achilles) to avenge his death, much like Hamlet has been asked by his father’s ghost to avenge his murder. Thus the comparison seems obvious. However, there is nothing romantic or gallant about what Pyrrhus does to Priam. Priam did not kill Achilles. In fact, they got on quite well in the end (considering that Achilles killed Priam’s son Hector); a mutual respect emerged between them. In addition to this, the performed scene juxtaposes Pyrrhus as a warrior at the height of his powers – virile, strong and savage, against Priam who is old, weak and powerless. Priam’s sword is useless and his spear is flung so feebly at Pyrrhus that it cannot even pierce his shield. Therefore, if Hamlet sees himself as Pyrrhus, he acknowledging what he must become – a vicious murderer, prepared to take life without hesitation and someone who will actually enjoy doing it. Hamlet perhaps even salivates at the idea that he could become such a man as Pyrrhus – a warrior of unquestioning action, who does what needs to be done without a second thought. By asking to hear about Pyrrhus is Hamlet ‘playing dress-up’ in the mirror and role-playing his future actions in his head to see how he feels about them?
It is an intriguing scene selection by Shakespeare and one that perhaps lends itself to even further analysis.
Contributor: David Hogg
Henry VI Part I
Reference: Icarus
Level: Overt
Description: In Act IV, Scene 6 of Henry VI Part I, Talbot is about to face the rampant French army, when he is joined on the battlefield by his son John. Talbot had initially invited John to the battlefield to instruct him in the arts of war – but this was at a time when Talbot felt sure of an easy victory. When John arrives, Talbot is aware that he is unlikely to survive this battle and asks his son to return home. After much toing and froing between the father and the son, it is agreed between them that if John has to fight, he will “follow thou thy desperate sire of Crete, Thou Icarus… fight by thy father’s side; And, commendable proved, let’s die in pride”. The allusion is clear; Daedalus led Icarus to his death when they escaped from Crete and here, Talbot (John’s father) knows that he is about to lead his son into oblivion. The difference between Talbot and Daedalus is that the legendary Greek had no idea that Icarus would die. In fact, he thought that he was saving him. Talbot on the other had knows full well that he is about to lead his son into his death, even labelling him ‘Icarus’, essentially telling his son, ‘you are doomed’ . Variations of the word ‘fly’ (flight, fly, flies) appear many times in both the exchanges between Talbot and John and from Talbot after John’s death. ‘Escape’, ‘flee’ and words associated with the sky above also frame this moment in the play, emphasising the point that this is a retelling of the Icarus myth (Talbot again calls John “Icarus” after he discovers he is dead).
Shakespeare was perhaps making a point about toxic masculinity here. Talbot begins to feel pride that his son will die alongside him. He finds this option preferable than them both retreating from the battlefield. It is not the only time Shakespeare explores the idea that fathers are the cause of their children’s death (think of how Young Siward’s death is celebrated rather than mourned by his father in Macbeth). In this Henriad we see the actions of fathers leading to the death of their children time and time again. There is even a scene where a father realises that he has killed his own son in battle. This scene is nicely paralleled and reversed when a son realises that he has killed his own father in the same battle – both men approach the bodies of their father/son to strip them of their possessions and it is perhaps in this moment that the true grubbiness of war is exposed. Forget the right to succession – men die because other men want more than what they have.
Talbot should have protected John and John should not have been too filled with warped ideas of masculinity to realise that life is a gift that should not be squandered. Alas, for glory, John decided to fly as close to the sun as he could and the heat of battle melted his wings and inevitably sent him crashing to the earth. However, Talbot’s labelling of his son as Icarus cowardly negates his own responsibility for his death – he is blaming John for his impetuousness and thus his demise. A more accurate myth for Talbot to refer to would have been that of Tantalus and Pelops.
Contributor: David Hogg
Hamlet
Reference: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar
Level: Overt
Description: In Act V, Sc I of Hamlet, the eponymous lead meets the skull of “poor Yorick” as it is dug up from a grave and this leads him into an existential crisis (one of many in the play). Hamlet asks Horatio, “Dost thou think Alexander looked o’this fashion i’th’earth?” to which Horatio replies, “E’en so.” Hamlet continues to question what he already knows is true – that death is the great leveller of all men and it is inevitable. Like a teenager who makes jokes to his friends when petrified in a horror movie, Hamlet then asks Horatio if Alexander the Great’s corpse would have smelt the same too. He then goes even further with his ‘comic routine’ when he states, “why may not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander till ‘a find it stopping a bunghole?”. The use of bathos here is unexpected and comic; one cannot help but visualise Alexander the Great, literally stuck in a ‘bunghole’. But it was Shakespeare who wrote in King Lear, “Many a true word hath been spoken in jest”, and it is in these jocular exchanges that Hamlet reveals his concerns not just around death but about his legacy and the rationale behind avenging his father’s death. If all flesh is simply grass anyway, then what difference does it make what we do or do not do in life? Good or bad, we will all become a bunghole stopper. Thus what is the point in avenging his father, but also what is the point of not avenging his father – both outcomes will eventually lead to the same place.
Echoes of Horace’s “Pulvis et umbra sumus”, (we are but dust and shadow) are also heard when Hamlet states, “Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth to dust; the dust is the earth; of the earth we make loam whereto he was converted might they not stop a beer barrel?”. The reasons that Hamlet chooses to use Alexander the Great as his example are obvious – Alexander was a yardstick by which other men measured themselves against. Julius Caesar had his own existential crisis when placed next to the Macedonian King and he realised that at 30, Alexander had ‘conquered the world’, whereas he (Caesar) had, by comparison, achieved nothing. The rest, is of course history, but it is interesting that Hamlet chooses Julius Caesar to finish his own ‘Alexander crisis’, when he states, “Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay, might stop a hole to keep the wind away. O, that that earth which kept the world in awe should patch a wall t’expel the winter’s flaw!”. Next to these two behemoths of history, Hamlet may justifiably feel somewhat pointless. He should perhaps remove the Alexander loam from the beer barrel, have a drink and try to forget about oblivion – just for one evening at least.
Contributor: David Hogg
Othello
Reference: Sappho
Level: Inferred
Description: One of the most important pieces of symbolism in Othello is Desdemona’s handkerchief. It is found throughout the play and leads to the downfall of the Moor. This piece of fabric is the focus of some (frankly) quite ridiculous conversations between Iago, Desdemona and Othello to demonstrate the ever-growing jealousy within Othello and the foolishness of his behaviour. When Othello stands on the stage and bellows at the top of his lungs “The handkerchief” three times, it is almost impossible not to ridicule the incongruity of his emotions with this ugly word. Regardless of its inappropriateness as a motive for murder, the handkerchief’s power is undeniable. This should not be a surprise as we learn that an Egyptian “charmer” gave it to Othello’s mother. It is Desdemona’s “first remembrance from the Moor” and is also a symbol of her fidelity to Othello; the handkerchief’s whiteness proves her purity and the strawberry design, “Conserved of maidens’ hearts” (3.4.74-75) is representative of her chastity. Therefore, Othello views the handkerchief with such importance, it is no wonder he starts to unravel when it has been lost and therefore the tissue is not quite as trivial as we think. The weight that this square of cloth carries proves that small items can carry emotional weight which can lead to sentimentality and eventually to irrationality.
Despite Shakespeare’s poetic power, the handkerchief still feels like an odd choice for a protagonist-toppling love token. Each emotionally charged conversation about the handkerchief sounds incongruous, especially when the word ‘handkerchief’ is actually enunciated; it just feels so un-Shakespearean. Why did he not use an item of jewellery or a letter or something other than the spiky-in-the-mouth handkerchief? Perhaps (and this is a big perhaps, with absolutely no evidence to back it up) the answer could lie in a translation of 4 words by the poet Sappho, which recently provoked me to ponder whether there may be a connection between Desdemona’s handkerchief and the Greek muse. To explain, there is a tiny fragment of Sappho that has been translated as, “A handkerchief, dripping with…”. It is impossible to read these words and not hear the sensual charge of this (dripping) handkerchief. What is it dripping with though? It is a question that has led to some interesting ideas, but almost all of them involve the body in some way. Did Shakespeare have access to this Sappho fragment? If he did, it may explain why he felt such confidence in hinging his tragedy around such a seemingly insignificant object. Sappho has breathlessly managed to make the napkin sound both romantic and seedy simultaneously – a feat that Shakespeare also achieves in his play. I would love to hear the thoughts of any scholars on this. Is there any chance that Shakespeare could have been influenced by Sappho’s ‘dripping handkerchief’? Desdemona’s, after all, was itself dripped upon from maidens’ hearts. Ben Jonson famously wrote that Shakespeare knew “little Latin and less Greek”. Wouldn’t it be great if this remnant of Sappho was the “less Greek” he knew?
Contributor: David Hogg
Macbeth
Reference: Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, Tullia Minor, Sextus Tarquinius
Level: Inferred and Overt
Description: Macbeth’s links to Lucius Tarquinius Superbus seem to be threefold and relate to Tarquinius, his wife Tullia and his son Sextus. Tarquinius Superbus was the last king of Rome. After a calculated campaign, Tarquinius seized power from his aged father-in-law, by literally throwing him out of the senate house. Livy suggested that he was being encouraged in his power grab (perhaps even manipulated) by his wife Tullia Minor. This is the first link to Macbeth. The second link is Tullia whose violence perhaps became the inspiration for Lady Macbeth. She conspired with Tarquinius not only to kill her own father but also her sister and his brother. She was so ruthless that when she saw the corpse of her father on the floor outside the senate building, she grabbed the reins of her chariot and drove over his body, spattering her clothes with his blood in the process. With the chariot, she seemed to be taking the reigns of power that she had helped to seize in her manipulation of Tarquinius. The final link to this family is via the son, Sextus Tarquinius. Macbeth actually mentions this historical figure by name in the ‘dagger soliloquy’ when he states “With Tarquin’s ravishing strides, towards his design moves like a ghost” (Act 2, Sc 1, Lines 5-6).
Macbeth uses this reference as an allusion to stealth, but, for a play that is full of omens, he perhaps did not pick his historical figure very wisely. Sextus was responsible for the rape of Lucretia, which eventually precipitated not only the end of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, but all monarchs in Rome – never again would Rome tolerate a king. Sextus managed to rape Lucretia and remain undetected during his crime, but Lucretia soon let her husband and her father know what had happened and Brutus (a friend of her husband’s) led the retribution that became a revolt. Sextus is therefore perhaps a perfect allusion for Macbeth. Both allowed their lusts to disregard the future consequences of their actions in order to fulfil an immediate desire – and both lost not only their lives, but their kingdoms, with far-reaching consequences for their countries.
Contributor: David Hogg
Antony and Cleopatra
Reference: Heracles/Hercules
Level: Overt
Description: At the end of Act IV, Scene 12, in Shakespeare’s version of the greatest love story ever told, Mark Antony realises his mistake in falling under the bewitching spell of Cleopatra. He discovers that she has withdrawn from the Battle of Actium and with this retreat, she has not only ended their chances of defeating Octavius, but has also ended their lives. Mark Antony calls her a “witch”, declares that she has “sold [him]” to “the young Roman boy” and threatens to kill her. Mark Antony is undeniably angry, but he is also heartbroken and feels betrayed by the love of his life. His emotional turmoil is reflected in his reference to the death of Hercules. Mark Antony declares, “The shirt of Nessus is upon me. Teach me, Alcides… thy rage. Let me lodge Lichas on the horns o’th’moon, and with those hands that grasped the heaviest club subdue my worthiest self.”
The real Mark Antony supposedly traced his own lineage back to Hercules/Heracles and as his character stares death in the face, he asks his ancestor to provide him with the strength he needs to kill Cleopatra. Nessus (referred to in the quote) was the centaur who, after being fatally wounded by Heracles, tells Deianira that his blood can act as a love potion, whilst knowing that his blood has been poisoned by Heracles’s arrow. When Deianira starts to worry that she is going to lose Heracles to a love rival, she soaks a cloak in the centaur’s blood (thinking that the garment is now blessed with a love potion) and sends it to Heracles. The cloak poisons Heracles and leads to his agonising death. There are conflicting versions of the myth – some say that Deianira knew that the cloak was going to kill her husband and others say she was ignorant of the consequences. Regardless of whether or not she knew, she was still responsible for the death of one of the Classical world’s most infamous heroes. When Mark Antony’s character invokes the imagery of the death of Heracles, he is clearly stating that Cleopatra has betrayed him and Shakespeare is suggesting that Mark Antony – one of the most infamous heroes of Roman history – has been given an untimely death, just like Heracles.
The image of the woman leading a mighty man to his grave is a motif that Shakespeare also used in Macbeth. Forget hydras, barbarians and swords – love seems to be one of the most dangerous things a man can encounter in the plays of Shakespeare and myths of the ancient world.
Contributor: David Hogg
Timon of Athens
Reference: Lucian Timon the Misanthrope
Level: Overt
Description: Timon of Athens is one of Shakespeare’s collaboration plays. It is widely thought that Thomas Middleton is a contributor to the writing, but even with statistical analysis, it is impossible to say that Shakespeare did not write the whole play.
Timon does appear in Plutarch’s Lives, but it is Lucian’s version of this story that seems to resonate most strongly in the Bard’s play. Timon of Athens is a ‘play for our times’. It seems to be written with the Credit Crunch in mind – Timon’s need to be seen as rich outstrips his actual wealth and he finds himself in debt. The friends on whom he once lavished his ‘own’ money are suddenly penniless and unavailable in his moment of financial need and it is at this point that Timon of Athens becomes Timon the Misanthrope. In Lucian’s work, Timon is already poor and we hear about his backstory through his first person narrative. Like Shakespeare’s Timon, Lucian’s Timon has also been rinsed and rejected by his wealthy friends. Living out his life as a labourer, he has strong feelings about liars and charlatans and the ‘liberal elite’ get short shrift from him (as is also seen is Shakespeare’s play). Lucian’s Timon also stumbles across the hidden gold, which somewhat undermines or emphasises (depending on your reading) his musings and lifestyle.
This deus ex machine moment is a turning point in Shakespeare’s play. Shakespeare fleshes out Timon beyond the misanthropic hoarder of gold and turns him into the financial supporter of an armed rebellion against the Greek capital. It is a rare showing of Shakespeare’s anti-authoritarian sentiment, which is a sentiment he hides well in lots of his other works. Timon of Athens was not one of Shakespeare’s last plays, but it was certainly written in the twilight of his career. Perhaps he felt more emboldened to write truthfully about rebellion and fawning hangers-on in his later years; or perhaps he was just the older establishment man showing off his radical ideas to the younger Thomas Middleton.
Contributor: David Hogg
Julius Caesar
Reference: Cicero Pro Milone
Level: Inferred
Description: There are two great speeches in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The first is given by Brutus who tries to make the plebs understand why he and his fellow co-conspirators had to kill the dictator. It is an excellent speech that expertly utilises well-known rhetorical devices. By the end, it is clear that Brutus has won the crowd over with his well-chosen words. However, he has made a fatal error in allowing Mark Antony to follow his oration with one of his own. The mirroring of the two speeches is an example of a craftsman (Shakespeare) at the peak of his performance. Not only has Shakespeare written two excellent rhetorical speeches, he has also made sure that one is brilliant and the other is (subtly) even better!
The opening tricolon of Brutus’s “Romans, countrymen and lovers” is echoed in Mark Antony’s “Friends, Romans, countrymen”, but a closer analysis reveals that Mark Anthony ‘beats’ Brutus. Mark Antony’s syllable count increases with each word, and his asyndeton allows the size of his audience to grow uninterrupted by a superfluous ‘and’. Plus, Mark Antony sees being ‘friends’ with his audience as more important than just being fellow ‘Romans’. Brutus has used reason adroitly in his speech, but as Plutarch notes, Mark Antony appealed to the hearts – a rhetorical technique suggested by Aristotle. There are more parallels between the speeches, but that is for a different discussion.
There are clear echoes between both characters’ speeches and Cicero’s Pro Milone. Did Shakespeare write these orations with one eye on Cicero’s defence of the accused Milo? It would be a very sensible bit of scaffolding if he did choose this text; there are not many better examples rhetorical writing. We hear Mark Antony’s “and grievously hath Caesar answered it” in Cicero’s “has finally begun to be tested with Clodius dead”. Also, “The noble Brutus hath told you…” is heard in Cicero’s use of imaginary opposition statements, “Yes, but Clodius stood in the way of Milo’s hopes of gaining the consulship”. Brutus seems to get help from Cicero’s line, “For who was there among the citizens…” when he asks “who is here so base that would be a bondman?”. Cicero also mentions “prayers and tears”, which is echoed in Mark Anthony’s “my heart is in the coffin there’” It is not a surprise to find parallels between two great pieces of rhetoric as all speeches use the same techniques. However, there are some similarities that just seem too obvious to ignore and I suspect that Shakespeare knew his Pro Milone pretty well. I pause for a reply…
Contributor: David Hogg
Romeo and Juliet
Reference: Pyramus and Thisbe
Level: Inferred
Description: The original star-crossed lovers can be seen hurtling towards their death in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. In this myth, the two lovers (Pyramus and Thisbe) are neighbours who are separated by more than just the wall that forms a physical barrier between them – their families are also rivals and thus, they are destined never to be together. There is some hope though! A small crack between the dividing wall allows the couple to emotionally connect to each other and plot their elopement. They both agree to meet at the tomb of Ninus. However, Thisbe (having arrived at the tomb first) is frightened by the sight of a lion with a bloody mouth and runs away and leaves her scarf behind. When Pyramus arrives, he sees the blood around the lion’s mouth and Thisbe’s scarf on the floor and assumes that she has been eaten. Distraught at the loss of his loved one, he kills himself. Thisbe then returns and finds Pyramus dead and distraught, kills herself. Thus, “From forth the fatal loins of these two foes, A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life”, and Shakespeare gets the inspiration for one of his most popular plays. The tragedy of Pyramus and Thisbe is also found in Shakespeare’s A Mid-summer Night’s Dream, performed by The Mechanicals at the wedding of Theseus – the famous ‘play within a play’. Clearly, Shakespeare knew the myth.
However, Shakespeare was not writing in a vacuum and he frequently used other sources as inspiration and this is something that he did to create his version of the Romeo and Juliet story. In 1562, Arthur Brooke translated an Italian story into The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, which was a re-told by Williams Painter in Palace of Pleasure (1567). Shakespeare’s version is different to these texts, but their role as ‘source material’ would be difficult to deny as the plots are broadly similar. However, it is possible to ‘reimagine’ a familiar story and then improve and own it (Battlestar Galactica and Planet of the Apes spring to mind) and at the end of the day, a tale told by any other writer would perhaps not have sounded as sweet.
Contributor: David Hogg
Macbeth
Reference: Hecate
Level: Overt
Description: In Macbeth, the goddess of Witchcraft, Hecate, makes a bizarre and somewhat fleeting appearance. Some scholars have suggested that this scene (Act III, Sc 5) was not even written by Shakespeare and was included by A. Non to add to the Jacobean audiences’ enjoyment of the witchcraft scenes that were already present in the play. This scene is rarely included in any version of the tragedy as it seems incongruous to the main focus of the story – that of Macbeth’s use of his ‘free will’.
We learn from Hecate in this scene that “security is mortals’ chiefest enemy” and that “artificial sprites… shall draw him [Macbeth] on”. This blatant mapping out of Macbeth’s path takes away some of his ‘human failings’ and perhaps lets him ‘off the hook’. One of the great themes of Macbeth is how the humane elements of a person can be quashed by a tragic flaw (desire). If we allow the witches to have complete control over Macbeth’s descent, which is what Hecate claims, it seems like his actions are no longer his fault and a key element of the play is lost. However, it is interesting that a Greek goddess makes an appearance as the Head of the coven; by including this pagan god, Shakespeare (or whoever added this scene) has distanced the witches (and therefore by association Macbeth) even further from ‘goodness’ of Christianity.
The influence of this ‘false goddess’ perhaps makes Macbeth’s destructive actions inevitable – he cannot save his soul as he is no longer close enough to the true God. If you add to this paganism Lady Macbeth’s plea to “spirits’” we clearly see that bad people get helped by bad gods. Interestingly, in mythology, Hecate was associated with openings, doorways and crossroads – three places in which Macbeth clearly finds himself standing with big decisions to make. What he really needed was the God of Directions to tell him which way to go next.
Contributor: David Hogg
Titus Andronicus
Reference: Metamorphoses by Ovid
Level: Overt
Description: This Shakespeare play has one of the highest and most bloody body-counts of any production on stage or screen. There is cannibalism, human sacrifice and senseless murder, but the thread that pulls most at our heartstrings is the fate of Titus’s daughter, Lavinia. Lavinia is raped and then mutilated to keep her silent (her hands are removed and her tongue is cut out) by the sons of Tamora (the conquered Queen of the Goths). Echoing Greek tragedy, the horror of the act occurs off-stage, but the horrors of the aftermath are uncomfortably shown to the audience in all their gory detail. I have seen two productions of this gruesome play and both times, Lavinia’s fate has forced the audience to question the acceptability of seeing such an act on stage. When Lavinia emerges from her ordeal, she is silent and it is only when she tries to talk and blood emerges from her mouth, that we realise she has had her tongue removed. At this point during an RSC production, one audience member fainted and another vomited in the stairwell. At a production at The Globe, fainting occurred coupled with people walking out in disgust. Does the performance of such an act for ‘entertainment’ go too far?
But perhaps Lavinia is the side of war that we see the least, both in fiction and reality – it is the face of the female victims (often caught between warring patriarchies) who are targeted by the men not for political or loyalist reasons, but because of their gender and what that means for their attacker. Their stories are traditionally written out of the ‘big narratives’ and their ‘silence’ allows the conqueror to sleep better at night. Lavinia does not accept this fate though and uses a copy of Ovid’s Metamorphoses to show her father what has happened to her. First, she opens the book of poetry to the story of Philomel to show her family that she has been raped. Then she inscribes the names of her attackers in sand. The poetry of Ovid allows Lavinia to have a voice and seek justice. The irony is that Ovid’s poetry provided evidence for Augustus when banishing Ovid from Rome – thus silencing him (or so Augustus thought).
Lavinia’s final act echoes the fates of Rome’s idealised stoic women – Arria and Lucretia perhaps – as she allows her father to kill her so that neither Lavinia nor Titus have to live with the shame of her attack. It is an uncomfortable ending to an uncomfortable story; even though it was the woman who was attacked, it was the man (in this instance, her father) who tried to steal and then surpass the suffering of the woman so that he could become the ‘true victim’. Because she is a female, Lavinia is not even allowed to own her own pain.
Contributor: David Hogg
Cymbeline
Reference: Ovid, Tereus, Philomela
Level: Inferred
Description: In a particularly uncomfortable scene, the audience is led to believe that Jachimo is going to rape Imogen. This seems all the more certain when Jachimo sees what Imogen was reading before she went to sleep, “She hath been reading late the tale of Tereus. Here the leaf’s turned down where Philomel gave up” (Act II, Sc 2). She is reading Ovid’s version of this myth and the foreshadowing of what is probably going to happen next is made clear. It is quite interesting to think that there would have been an audience hundreds of years ago watching this play in a Tudor theatre who would have understood this highbrow reference and simultaneously enjoyed bear-baiting.
Thankfully, Jachimo changes his mind and leaves Imogen sleeping. The audience breathes a collective sigh of relief.
Contributor: David Hogg
Titus Andronicus
Reference: Thyestes by Seneca
Level: Inferred
Description: At the time of writing this website entry (Oct ’17), Titus Andronicus is in the news because it is being taught at Cambridge University with a ‘Trigger warning’. Anyone who has seen this play performed live will perhaps not be as reductive as many journalists are when reacting to this news; the rape of Lavinia and what happens to her subsequently is one of the most distressing scenes in theatre; its impact is perhaps only beaten by Tamora unknowingly eating a pie made from her own children (Chiron and Demetrius) at the end of the performance. The use of children as ‘revenge ingredient’ can be traced back to Seneca’s Thyestes. In this Classical revenge tragedy, Thyestes steals both the wife and the kingdom of his brother, Atreus. Atreus gets his own back by preparing a banquet and feeding Thyestes a meal made from his own children, just like Titus does to Tamora.
It is an incredibly dark scene, but one that, depending on the interpretation, can also be darkly comic – a fact that South Park exploited in their own interpretation of Seneca’s play (see the TV page for more on this).
Contributor: David Hogg
Romeo and Juliet
Reference: Apollo (or is it Hyperion or Helios or Phaethon?)
Level: Overt
Description: The excitement builds at the end of Act II, Sc 2 as Romeo and Juliet decide to get married after they have only known each other for 5 minutes. What could go wrong? Well, if you were listening to the Chorus at the beginning of the play, you know this story does not end well for the star-crossed lovers. If only Friar Lawrence had been around in this scene instead of in the next one to warn them “those who rush stumble and fall”, we might have had a happy ending instead. But the Friar never was in the right place at the right time in this play. Additionally, had Romeo listened to his own words, he may have heard a warning to himself!
At the end of the scene, when Romeo and Juliet have agreed to get married and are making plans for the next day, Romeo states “From forth day’s pathway made by Titan’s wheels.” This is a reference to a Sun god and I am picking Apollo here, instead of Hyperion or Helios for reasons that I will explain now. Romeo is obviously keen to get ‘tonight’ out of the way so that he can marry Juliet and is therefore picturing the day galloping towards them – the sun being pulled by Apollo’s chariot. However, in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, we are told the story of the impetuous Phaethon (the son of Apollo) who steals his father’s sun-chariot, which he is too young and inexperienced to control. This reckless behaviour leads to lots of destruction and ultimately his death. Perhaps Romeo’s words create an echo of this myth too as he impulsively sets off to prove just how much he loves Juliet and charges into a tragic disaster of his own creation.
Contributor: David Hogg
The Tempest
Reference: Herodotus
Level: Inferred
Description: Gonzalo states that when he was young he believed “that there were such men whose heads stood in their breasts” (Act III Sc. 3). This is a reference first seen in Histories by Herodotus. The far-flung unknown was back in vogue in Shakespeare’s time as the ‘New World’ continued to enchant and surprise the ‘Old World’. People would have believed anything they were told – not like today when people check all of the facts thoroughly before posting anything to their Facebook account.
Contributor: David Hogg
Macbeth
Reference: Oedipus, Neptune
Level: Inferred
Description: After the murder of King Duncan, Macbeth states, “They pluck out mine eyes. Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood.” (Act II, Sc 2). By referring to his eyes being plucked out, Macbeth infers that Duncan was like a father to him, which of course makes his crime even worse. Eyes are important in Macbeth, because what they see is not the truth and we are left to wonder if the most important thing in life is to appear to be great, even if we know we are not. We see this today in the manipulation of the press by the media-savvy.
The reference to Neptune is obvious, but serves to reinforce the Classical reference that precedes it. Also, in a play where the rejection of Christian values is so damaging, the fact that Macbeth turns to a pagan god to assuage his guilt adds more emphasis to the loss of his Christianity.
Contributor: David Hogg
Classical Studies Support 