So thanks a lot for coming in to this first lecture on Sindelar.
Some lecturing this term on five slightly odd Shakespeare plays,
partly because last year increasing number that are left from the ones I've already done like the previous lectures.
These will all be recorded on two years.
So if you're wondering why I'm not lecturing on Tamla or something, it's because I've already done it and it's already available.
If there are twenty seven lectures on Shakespeare's plays available on how to do as part of the Approaching Shakespeare series.
There's also a series on other Renaissance plays, not Shakespeare. You might find interesting too.
Each letter follows the same pattern.
Trying to focus the kind of critical history of the play via a particular insistent or self-evident question is Prospero Shakespeare?
Why is Falstaff fact? How sad is King Lear?
I give a short summary of the play so you can understand the lecture even if you haven't read it.
That might be more necessary this time than ever.
And I tried to suggest some of the ways you might link it to other plays chronologically, pneumatically or critically.
So coming up this term are all's well that ends well.
Merry Wives of Windsor to Henry six two gentlemen of Verona today, symbolism.
So Simelane is one of Shakespeare's last plays written in 16 10 and will see its own thematic affinity with other plays of the same period,
most notably Winter's Tale and The Temperance. It also fits alongside romance.
Tragicomic plays with Shakespeare, co-authors with Fletcher.
At the end of his career, Two Noble Kinsmen and All Is True, or Henry the eighth Simon Foreman,
the astrologer and quack doctor went to see the play in April 16 eleven and he wrote a short account of it.
Then I'm going to discuss in a minute. So what I'd normally do at this point in the lecture is to summarise the play
with some implications that I want to discuss in more detail as we go along.
Summarising the play is quite difficult in the case of symbolism.
There is an awful lot of plot. It's as if Shakespeare, through all the elements of his, plays into this one before the reshoots.
You do? Shakespeare Company ever got their idea? It's got across dressed woman.
It's got beheadings, it's got cancer death, poisonous potions, battles,
intense father daughter relationships, unwarranted, me, jealous husbands, innocent wives.
But to put it another way, it's as if someone ransacked the filing cabinet of the structural chemist Vladimir Propp and emptied out all
31 of his functions of narrative from absence Haitien and interdiction to transfiguration and marriage.
If you look at these fabulous fun for all kinds of things, including at Cymbeline,
so all I'll say about the plot of the play for now is enough to set up the question I want to organise.
The lecture around simply takes place in ancient Britain and then begins with the King simply refusing to pay
tribute money to the Romans symbolisms daughter imagines or in some editions imagine with a double edged.
This is a very, very vexed question in Shakespeare studies. And even though I do like those kinds of arcane details, I can't get too excited about.
Imagine. Imagine. But it's good to know about.
Imagine or imagine. King, the King's daughter, have secretly married a commoner, Posthumus.
And when the king finds out, he vanishes Posthumus in a fury in exile.
Posthumus has a bet with the wild man of the world, he Alkimos that Imogene would always be faithful to him.
The acumen goes to Britain to test her Shakespearean manual.
Realised or always jealous. Think of much ado as Claudio or Othello or closer to the time of Composition Assembly.
Lay on Tis a Winter's Tale. Except when they should be the Emperor saturnine us in Titus Andronicus doesn't seem to realise that his wife's
copping off with Aaron more even when she gives birth to a baby described in the play's very problematic racial.
LAX's a black tadpoles. But the rest of the play symbolism is about how this mistaken and misdirected jealousy is sorted out.
Against the backdrop of a battle with the Romans over this issue of tribute.
There is one other major plot element to introduce at this point symbolisms to some.
Were stolen away from court by a disgruntled quartier. In their infancy.
Course they were. They've grown up as outlaws in the Welsh countryside where image and their sister encounters that when she's dressed as a boy.
And there's lots more plots, as I've said. But that's probably quite enough for now.
The point I want to get to is that at the end of the play,
when the identities of being revealed and the relationships repaired and the twists and turns unmask the British beat the Romans.
The Roman general Lucio's is brought in with a number of prisoners and they sound
captured on stage as witnesses to the multiple revelations of the final scene.
Then similarly announces, although the victor we submit to Caesar,
although the victor we submit to Caesar and to the Roman Empire promising to pay are wanted tribute.
So although the victor wants to submit to Caesar promising to pay Özlem to tribute.
So you've refused to pay the tribute? We've gone to war on the point.
We've won the war. And now you're going to pay the tribute.
Why?
I want to try and focus on the oddness, the unnecessary ness of this plot twist and ask why Dustin Belene agreed to pay the tribute to the Romans.
Why paid tribute? And that's the question I want to find by the various kinds of my lecture.
Peter. Let's approach this first via the question of genre.
I've already suggested that symbolism has close affinity with other of Shakespeare's late plays, especially The Tempest in A Winter's Tale.
Like then, it draws on elements of romance in the mediaeval narrative sense, including storytelling stretched across time and geographical space.
An interesting family dynamics,
particularly between fathers and daughters set against wider political issues and favour tropes including Disguise Revelator,
which birthmarks prominent and active heroines and a high emotional temperature.
To some extent then this 19th century designation. Nobody calls these plays romances until Edward Darden's in the Victorian period coin's this term.
But to some extent, this 19th century designation overlaps with an early modern ones, the fashionable new genre of tragicomedy tragicomedy,
particularly associated with Shakespeare collaborator and his successor with The King's Men, John Fletcher.
The tragic comedy is the coming thing. It's the theme that will outlast Shakespeare's career,
which is coming to an end and which will dominate the theatre during the security teams and sixty twenties.
Tragicomedy sometimes presents impossibly ominous situations.
The tragedy fixed but are miraculously resolved. The comic fades and sometimes it mixes are kind of tragic.
Sensibility within a comic framework similarly conforms to this to some extent,
bringing the apparently dead back to life and reconciling the jealous husband with his wronged wife.
But it doesn't really conform to Fletcher's oft quoted definition of tragic comedy, which is in community to the preface.
Included in the preface to his play, the fateful shepherdess klatches played a fateful shepherdess.
Fletcher describes a tragicomedy as a play that once again lacks warmth sex,
which is enough to make it no tragedy yet bring some near it, which is enough to make it no comedy.
It's quite interesting definition of tragedy and comedy. In fact, tragedy, tragedies about deaths.
Comedy is about no one being too close to death and tragic comedy somehow blows those two.
But in fact, there are deaths in Cymbeline, most notably beheading the beheading of the king's creepy stepson, Coton, whose mother wants him to marry.
Imagine the scene in which imagine cuddles up to this bloody corpse in the mistaken grief that the headless
body dressed in her husband's clothes is indeed posthumous is a really good example of this place.
Uneasy tone. Many of symbolisms, moments of high emotional authenticity, including perhaps its most famous lines, fear no more.
The feet of the son are in the context where they appear in the play.
Ironically, undermined fear no more. The heat of the sun is a funeral threnody for a corpse that we, the audience, know is not really dead.
Imogen has taken one of those ubiquitous Shakespearean potions that only mimic death just as her tears over this bloody man are misplaced,
directed towards a man she hates rather than loves.
Fear no more. The heat of the sun is, perhaps not incidentally, the Shakespearean quotation Winnie is trying to remember.
While she's buried waist deep in the ground, led to neck deep in Samuel Beckett play hockey games.
So simple in here is Romeo and Juliet rewritten so that Juliet cries unwittingly over the body of Paris, thinking it is Romeo and Juliet,
and in so doing undermines the difference between Paris and Romeo, which was so substantial that she herself would die for it later in the play.
This sardonic manipulation of tone is one of the ways symbolic teeters between genres.
Somehow at once de authenticating its own moments of apparent sincerity and thereby stable at destabilising our response.
It's a tone we might you bring it off by a critical concept that enjoy those kind of switchback moods.
Irony, kitsch, Cameron. While seeing symbolism alongside these other late plays gives us perhaps as a reason for the capitulation on the tribute.
It's a point about forgiveness. Shakespeare's tragedies, as you know, tend to hurtle headlong from catastrophic error to ultimate destruction.
But there's no time to reflect or reconcile or get a second chance.
You screw up, you die. The romances seem to visit those tragic scenarios, explicit and explicitly, to imagine what could happen next.
How might time heal this terrible situation?
What might it be if you screw up and you have to live with the consequences rather than be done in The Winter's Tale?
Lyons's is an a fellow who has to live with the consequences of his jealousy for 16 long years and then is rewarded by the return of his wife.
In The Tempest, Prospero is a hamlet. Both the old king and the young prince who chooses virtue over vengeance and gets his power back in symbolism.
The king is a leader who is reunited with his daughter.
The comparison with the text of Lear is published in the Folio in sixteen twenty three is a really, really interesting one.
Most critics now think Shakespeare was reworking his play King Lear around the same time as his writing symbolism.
So perhaps this mood of forgiveness is one way to understand the last scene of the play.
Separated lovers in Shakespeare's tragedies are often representative of larger sociopolitical conflicts from the
feuding Montagues and Capulets in Romeo and Juliet to the Greek controlled insides and Choice and Cressida,
perhaps even including the fellow in Desdemona. Against the background of the Turkish threat to the nation,
Cyprus and at the end of symbolic but some sort of analogy between the reconciled couple
Posthumus and Imagine and the reconciliation between the Roman and British powers,
it seems that general amnesties for a general mood of forgiveness.
OK, so so far I've talked about romance and tragicomedy, a chance for this play.
There are two more possibilities I want to touch on. One relates to the play's first publication.
Like many of the plays from the second half of Shakespeare's writing career and like its own compromise hero,
an artist posthumously an artist, Cymbeline is published posthumously.
It has to wait until the First Folio of sixteen twenty three to be printed.
You may remember that one of the only explicit editorial interventions into that big volume
of collective plays and the one that gives us its full title is the division into genres.
Master William Shakespeare's comedies,
histories and Tragedies Cymbeline appears as the very last play of the 35 listed on the Kassala page at the end.
Perhaps surprisingly of the tragedies, in some ways it seems as if the blame has been placed there because of its title.
Singular names are either history or tragedies. In Shakespeare and the Folio, for reasons that we won't go into now,
has decided that history for its purposes is a box set of serial mediaeval English kings from John onwards.
So it's not the ancient histories of Masback or King Lear, even though those plays share with Henry Problem Henry the Fifth.
A common source in Holland Szeps Historic Chronicles. And it's not either Julius Caesar or Coriolanus works that are about history,
but not English history by the folio that's become mediaeval English history.
So simply wouldn't really fit into that. So maybe we need to add tragedy into the mix of ex generic expectations the play evokes.
Even though it's a designation that sets up expectations, the play does not entirely fulfil.
Symbolism is not the tragic hero of a play, but like much of Shakespeare's last work, explores this strange post, tragic space of possibility.
And finally, generically and perhaps most closely associated with the central question of this lecture.
The tribute payable to the Romans simply looks like the last of Shakespeare's Roman plays in all his plays about ancient Rome.
Shakespeare shows Rome in conflict with itself, with enemies, without with contrary views of the world.
And he usually does that from the point of view of Rome as the centre of interest against which others variously goths, Egyptians as well.
Skins are distinguished or something similar here.
But it's been flipped. Britain, the non Roman pole in this binary, it's the centre of the action.
Rome, it's the other. Rome is the alternative viewpoint, not the central one.
It's perhaps the ultimate development of Shakespeare's interest in Rome throughout his career,
in which his heroes increasingly want to escape from Rome with Antony in Antony Cleopatra or about Coriolanus, maybe.
And here we have a Rome that the players escape from.
That is itself decentred and marginal.
These hybrid generic influences and expressions point to something that I think is useful for thinking about this play more widely.
Hybridity, hybridity, a term from cultural and political animal studies, has a number of contact points with similarly hybridity signals,
culture or cultural artefacts produced by the blending of two parent cultures into a new and distinct form.
The language of the generations is interesting for linking the structural and formal qualities of this play with the familial dynamics of its plot.
If hybridised cultural forms combine the qualities of parent cultures into something new.
And if in doing so, they have the capacity to disrupt or challenge those perspectives.
Hybridity has an affinity with intergenerational strife at the hybrid project is at odds with
the parent cultures that produced it and from which against which it wants to define itself.
We could think then about hybridity as a as a framework for the relations between parents and children in the play,
between symbolism and imagery, between Cymbeline and the stolen sons, between the wicked queen Cymbeline second wife who sold the kids.
You can only be called Queen and her son Clode term turn.
And between Posthumus named because his birth post dates the death of his father and his own parents,
who he sees in a kind of spectacular dream vision sequence. After the battle with the Romans, it's a great safe direction in the Folio.
Enter as in an apparition Sicilia's slaying Nazir's father to Posthumus,
an old man attired like a warrior with an ancient matron, wife and mother, his wife and mother to Posthumus.
It's a moment of particular spectacle when Posthumus, his family, summon up the gods, Jupiter,
who the Foleo stage direction tells us, descends in thunder and lightning, sitting upon an eagle.
He throws the Lord who might want to think of this unexpected sequence, the sequence of Jupiter, the God, Jupiter coming down on an eagle.
Everything about it is unexpected. I mean that this is a world few better.
It is. Or is this quite weird for a start? Saturn Eagle would come down from the heavens above.
The sage is also probably quite unexpected. So we might think about the element of surprise.
Here is itself a kind of hybrid forms. The intrusion of a distinctly visual moment into the generally verbal textures of Shakespearean dramaturgy.
For some critics, this relates to a new style of drama prompted and fostered by the increased visual palette afforded by the new indoor theatres.
The King's Man Shakespeare Company began to perform at the Indoor Theatre of Blackfriars in 16 08.
I talk a bit about Blackfriars and the impact its audience might have had on Shakespeare's plays in the lecture on Coriolanus.
For what we might want to think about in relation to Cymbeline is an increased focus on site as the dominant economies
in indoor theatre culture reship recent work prompted by the building of a Blackfriars inspired indoor theatre.
The Sun Wannamaker, as part of the Globe Complex on London's South Bank, has begun to explore many of the visual tropes directional candle light,
the chiaroscuro possibilities of darkness and shadow to the shimmering shot
silk worn by wealthy patrons that made them a glittering spectacle to rival.
The players were interested in the visual dynamics of the indoor theatres, not least because of this experiment laboratory in the Wannamaker.
Now, relatively few of Shakespeare's plays rely too much on the visual.
It's actually quite hard to think of a play where you actually need to be able to see something in order to understand what's happening.
Shakespeare has, as we know, a thoroughgoing habit of verbalising all actions.
Almost all stage actions are implied in dialogue, dialogue, which tells us where we are, at, what time it is, whether it's night or day.
And what what what it is we should be imagining that we see, for instance,
perhaps until the apparent revival of Khomeini's statue at the end of the Winter's Tale.
No play of Shakespeare's turns on a specifically visual.
No one might argue with me, I guess, about the reconciliation between us, a comedy of errors.
Or in Twelfth Night. But given that the two actors playing the twins probably didn't look that similar.
So maybe that that's actually kind of a. Visuals point rather than a pro play place.
However, perhaps written particularly with Blackfriars in mind, or perhaps particularly with the high end,
the aesthetic of Blackfriars in mind for Shakespeare's plays continued to be performed in both venues in the Globe as well as Blackfriars.
But the Globe Theatre productions probably change abase because of the high status that's given to a kind of Indore picture setting,
which is more expensive, more so. The descent of Jupiter events and thinking about back about legal fate.
You think the descent of Jupiter from the heavens above the stage can seem like special effects in a modern film to be.
Just because they can rather them, because they need to.
It's a way of showing off the technical capability rather than wonders necessitated by the plot.
But it's also hybridising in another way.
It brings in the expensive visual effects popularised in the jack to be in court by max by court masks as another generic influence.
And thus it participates in a wider aesthetic quarrel,
often articulated by the violent disagreement between Ben Johnson on the words side and Inigo Jones
on the set design side about whether words or spectacle are more significant in dramatic production.
This is a big example of the second decade, this gem to train.
Is it an indoor indoor theatres like Blackfriars tend to prioritise spectacle because they have better technical facilities,
but also because of the relative proximity of audiences within a space where lighting is controlled.
If you followed the controversies about the rebate global impact site and its former director and the rights,
you may recall that shed light was one of the great points of controversy.
That's to say the belief of the globe that audience and state must exist in the same unmanipulated
light environment to start with the kind of red lines that they weren't prepared to cross.
So if the outdoor theatres are based on shared lives, audience and stage in the same light conditions,
indoor theatres can do something quite different with lighting technology using candles on walls or pillows or in hanging candelabra
or carried by actors and using shutters to block out Daylife to light up particular themes or areas and to darken others.
We're not quite yet in the modern standard theatre where the audience is in pitch glass and the stage is brightly illuminated.
But in the Blackfriars, we are in an environment where lighting effects can highlight, should be seen and have no symphony to take on.
This is complicated. And if it was performed at Blackfriars, it was also probably performed at the Globe.
That may account for it. Or maybe a player has to think about two different environments.
It's one of the longest plays in Shakespeare's canon. Almost 4000 lines.
Only a couple of minutes shorter than Hamlet.
If we take seriously the Royal Shakespeare Company director Greg Dolan's assessment of Shakespeare's verse,
jogging along at about 800 lines and our 800 lines and our 4000 lines of simply well over four hours of dialogue,
it will be hard then to say it marks a shift towards a more visual and less verbal form of theatre.
But on the other hand, it's a play deeply interested in the dynamics of looking.
And I want to spend a bit of time on a scene I haven't yet mentioned to discuss
this parting with Imagine when he's banished from Britain by Cymbeline.
Posthumus gives her a bracelet and she gives him a reason that whilst her mother's he goes to Rome,
the other curiously hybridised aspects of Sindarin is when it takes place.
Ancient 50s and imperial Rome seemed to coincide temporally with Renaissance Italy.
Posthumus goes to Rome to meet a lot of fit, fashionable, cynical, well-educated young men straight out of Italian literary fiction.
Rome in symbolist is both the ancient empire and the contemporary city.
It comes as a shock.
Later in the play to see the urbane renaissance, a kind of caught me at figures Quartier Pigot, Yaki Mode's amongst the Roman Legionaries.
This looks like a kind of mattea plus distinct times and places.
But there are other historical palimpsest or Heidrich Harpe historical palimpsest or hybrids in this play that prominently named Milford Haven.
I want to talk more about the role of Wales country that has not been managed in a moment.
I think Wales is one of them. I mean, the marine whale is one of the things that's not in symbolism,
a good kind of antidote for the things that are unsupervised, knows about whales with an aim being fit right in.
And tell me. Oh, yeah.
Exactly. He knows they're in the clouds. That's right. And so wherever I got to.
Yeah. So Milford Haven in Wales would have probably recalled the founding of the Tudor dynasty in
the 15th century is the port where Richmond landed to take the throne from usurping Richard.
The third aspect. It tells us at the end of to the first Cymbeline was supposed to have been king of Britain at the time of the birth of Christ.
Another quite interesting historical conjunction.
But the world of the play is that of the Renaissance Court clocks, for instance,
strikes in emittance bedchamber so simply occupies a non-contiguous historical moment,
partly because explicit material about the Romans in Britain with a contemporary prose story from the Italian right to the catcher,
but partly because these kinds of hybridity are. I hope you're coming to see its distinctive mode.
But back to Posthumus and the importance of looking away in Rome praising imagines beauty,
Posthumus prompts one of his fellows the acumen to a kind of rivalrous jealousy akin
to that that Shakespeare explores with his rapist character toplines in the poem,
The Trees Toppling claims that he has been prompted by an increase.
His husband, Coller Times Back, boasts about his wife's perfections.
Boasting has raised her value in this violent way for two men, Posthumus and the Arkema make a bet of ten thousand Duckett.
Depending when you think of this play takes place, that seems quite a lot of money.
Remember, it's three thousand ducats in The Merchant of Venice, and that was quite the problem.
So here we've got ten thousand ducats and and imagines ring that state that that's the best emergency room.
We'll go to Yakima if you can bring proof that he has enjoyed the dearest bodily parch of your mistress.
What happens is that Yakima goes to Britain to meet Imogen. He's charmed by her virtue and realise he's not going to be able to seduce her.
But he gets himself smuggled into her chamber in a chest and she sleeps.
He opens the chest and creeps out to watch her.
He gained such detailed knowledge of her body, particularly the mole on her left breast.
It's a way a kind of fairy tale trope about a distinctive mark is really distorted and perverted and used in a quite different way again.
Such detailed knowledge of her body under fear Vivian declaration of her bedchamber and he is able to slip posthumous his
bracelet from her sleeping arm that he returns to Posthumus in Rome with clearly definite proof that he has had sex with her.
The scene of the upheaval in emergence bedchamber is one of the most intense that Shakespeare ever wrote and I think one of the most uncomfortable.
It brings centre stage the sense of theatrical spectatorship as voyeurism or Freudian analysis.
And cinema theory calls Scott's a failure.
Scott paraphilia the erotic pleasure of looking, particularly the pleasure of looking at another person still shocked.
Now, if we accept that the visual elements of theatre have been downplayed in the
development of drama in the 16th century and are just now coming into prominence,
we can see that Skop Ophelia, the erotics of looking. It's a relatively new dramatic concept, like a hidden camera.
Another kind of technological possibility.
But for people, again, lots of technologies have been used to people in that private, private kind of happenings or private things.
That's how cinema is is advertised. A peep show and prepared and peep show at the indoor theatres are an early version of a new technology that
allows us to see something more voyeuristically allows us to see into places that we don't normally see.
So like a hidden camera, the argument looks at image and you cannot look.
Back, his long speech of description turns into an object of back crisis.
But we also know that he means a harm to her, more indirectly cruel.
And that's a tough one to decrease. Yakima likens himself explicitly to talking at the beginning of the season.
We don't get it. Yukino consumes and takes power by looking, but uncomfortably.
So do we. For the Victorians, Cymbeline was a favourite play because they constructed Imogene as the most womanly of Shakespeare's heroines.
Swinburne saw her ask the immortal Godhead of womanhood and Ellen Terry,
the actress whose 19th century performance of the play cemented its reputation in the period, remarked, I can find no fault it had.
So the big talk of the 19th century simply is one of Shakespeare's great plays.
And that's first quite an interesting thing to look at. Why such a popular at certain times?
Why is it that we that the Victorians simply was what was important image and came to be the epitome of what Coventry Patmore,
in a famous and indicative poem now is best known for the way in which Virginia Woolf rejected it?
Ask the angel in the house. That was how it came to that scene.
Despite or perhaps because of that, perhaps there's a distinct thrill imperilling this power to the frisson of Imogen's in danger.
Trance. Chastity is a deeply troubling one.
Like the chemo, we are voyeurs in a bedroom decorated in a distinctly unhealthy, determinately sexualised matter.
If you Google Victorian images of imaging, you'll see what I mean about the titillating depiction of imperilled off the shoulder innocence.
Is at once wearing a kind of an innocent mate, innocent kind of person's nightgown.
But it's also just kind of fallen open so we can look at her.
It was a very weird erotic salt's image and being so innocent.
And that's what's so dangerously desirable about her.
Imogen's bedtime reading in symbolism is the rape of Philomel by terrier's in of its metamorphosis.
The prototype for the violence in Titus Andronicus.
Her chamber is decorated with the delicious images of Diana bathing another prototype for keeping spectators.
Imogene is disturbingly presented as somehow inviting her violation by willingly participating in these sexualised narratives.
She's reading that the salt really uncomfortable.
Wrong, perverse logic of this scene is that she's reading about rape and therefore a man is going to come out of the chest and under attack.
She's somehow seen as to be flaunting herself.
And it's precisely the problem of gender and power within that notion that I think the play makes us look at that,
that it's a really, really uncomfortable moment by prompting both dangerous desire from the acumen and from Clinton,
her encroaching stepbrother, brother, sister, and violent hatred from her jealous husband,
persuaded she's been unfaithful image and makes them look like the same thing, makes desire and violence, desire and hatred.
The same thing supposed to prompt both Posthumus and the Alkimos and Clinton
combined in a version of what ran Azera influentially called my Mesic desire,
my its desire. I want what you want in a couple of significant 21st century productions with
Mark Rylance of The Globe in 2001 and Tom Hiddleston for Cheek by Jowl in 2007,
Posthumus uncloaked and have been doubled to bring out the symmetry of these threats to Emerson.
The best chamber scene then revisits the boy Ristic complicity, both of the Lucretia Pelin and of the rape of Lavinia in Titus Andronicus.
To come back to my point about Spectacle and Blackfriars,
it's all about looking deeply uncomfortable for it, describing the performance he saw in sixteen year.
Simon Foreman was particularly struck by this encounter, recollecting how the Italian is not very convinced that Yakima is a Roman.
Clearly how the Italian that came from her lover conveyed himself into a chest and said it was a chest of plate sanctorum,
her love and others to be presented to the key. And in the deepest of the night, she being asleep.
He opened the chest and came forth of it and viewed her in her bed and the marks of her body.
And took away her bracelet and after accused her of adultery to Haldun, etc.,
it's much the most detailed bit of Foremans analysis of the performance goes to see about three or four plays.
Don't if we ever stated the and certainly not interested in what happens at the end.
But maybe he's gone earlier. Or maybe he gives us an example that the ending of Shakespeare is not actually easily the most interesting thing.
But he's really into this scene with Yukino observing the sleeping image.
It's a crucial scene for thinking about the representation of women of sexuality and the
new visuals of psychotic economy encouraged by the dramaturgy of the indoor theatres.
So we've got so far different kinds of hybridity, generic, generational, representational.
So we'll come back to the question about the tribute. Why does the victorious British Kingsley take the view?
We could say it's a final gesture of hybridity. It replaces conflicts, a compromise antagonism with melding.
And he imagines an ending for the play that prioritises national mingling rather than distinctiveness.
Paying the tribute proposes a kind of hybrid colonial model where the willing colony is happy to acknowledge the superiority of the imperial power.
Maybe something historical might help amplify this suggestion. Like other ancient Britain plays, most notably King Lear,
symbolism speaks of King James's interest in reviving the historical idea of Britain as a precedent for
uniting his two adjacent but administratively and culturally distinct kingdoms of England and Scotland.
John Speed's suggestively named Atlas, the Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain,
which published in 16 Latin so almost contemporaneous with Cymbeline, begins with a map of Britain at the time of the Saxons.
So even as it's giving us the kind of geography of modern counties,
it gives us this historical map popper of an old kingdom, Britain, to do this typical work of James's union.
So James and the Jacobean Corp. might feel an affinity with symbolism as the king of a united Britain.
But James was also strongly associated in those iconography with the play's absent Roman emperor Augustus Caesar.
Poets scrambled to nominate him a new Caesar at his succession in 16.
Three. His coronation medal showed him as Caesar Augustus of Britain.
A paradox that perhaps can explain some of the contortions of the play called Sindarin King of Britain.
He is both symbolism and Caesar. Maybe the fudge about the tribute then.
It's a topical Miguel, because Rome is both self and other key.
It's the imperial entity against which the plucky kingdom struggles and the ambition towards empire of contemporary England.
England had established Jamestown in Virginia in 16 of seven just a couple of years before this plague.
And it's just on the cusp of imperial and colonial expansion.
The myth of ancient Britain was founded on the myth that was derived from the myth of the Foundation of Rome,
just as in A-s, according to Virgil, had founded Rome out of the ashes of Troy.
So knew Troy, as London was sometimes known, were said to have been founded by the native son, Brutus.
Britain was thus the little brother or reincarnation of Rome rather than its contrast.
So it's written in this play. It's both. Let's look at it really mainly has suggested Little England and Great Britain.
It is beleaguered island nation and with expanding proto imperial powers.
This paradox expresses itself most clearly when the island nation and the imperial power are at odds in the matter of the tribute.
I want to just spend a little bit more time on that idea.
The idea of kind of imperialism, the island nation, and how early modern colonial colonialism might benefit from the notion of hybridity,
which comes from post-colonial studies by thinking about the play's depiction of whales without me.
Before King James deployed Britain as the time for his preferred United Kingdom's,
the word was mostly associated with Wales writers and historians look to Wales
as the site of ancient British values and where we see the idea of Britain's.
They usually Welsh. When Imogene leaves her father's court dressed as a male page, she heads for Wales.
And there she encounters, though she does not know them. Her lost brothers stolen from the court as children.
It's these brothers good areas. And after August, miraculously, who brought the Roman army?
Almost, it seems, without any help at all. And a victory to Britain.
And if you look at the depiction of the two brothers in the play, you'll see that they alternate between scenes where they are barbaric.
And scenes where they're civilised. They're both the same off.
And the threats to civilisation. It's an ambivalence that speaks to colonial anxieties about the role of Wales in the English or British politics.
Interestingly, as nationalism, devolution and calls for independence grow across the UK,
we're probably closer right now to understanding this combination of separateness and union in Great Britain in the early modern period dominance.
Any period since no cuidad.
It's a no obvious, a strongly associated with a particular place in Wales.
The court knows that Haven, a port in southwest Wales, now best known as a oil refining natural gas onshore.
There are 17 mentions in the play of Milford Haven.
I look that up in Folger Digital Text stock of which is the best online site researching Shakespeare's play.
So there are almost as many mentions of Milford Haven Cymbeline as there are of Venice in Merchant of Venice or Windsor.
In my wife's of Windsor. And I talk more about the significance of place in Shakespeare's plays when I get to know wives in a couple of weeks.
So why do we keep hearing this about welfare payments? Well, Wales had been absorbed into England during the Cheesa period.
It's an idealised version of the peaceable relation between dominant and subservient powers.
But we get in the agreement to pay the tribute at the end of the flag. Of course, it looks idealised from the centre of power from England.
It looks so great if you're Welsh.
It's also perhaps a part of Britain that can more safely engage James's ongoing project in the first year of his English
reign to unite England and Scotland for Wales gives us a way of talking about the relations between England and Scotland.
Jane is continuing his doomed attempts really to unite the kingdom's right up to six in 10 when this place first performed at the end of symbolic.
The King calls for the flags of Rome and Britain to fly together.
Perhaps recalling one of James's most important political rebranding exercises, the Proteau Union Flags of 16 and six,
which combined the Red Cross of St George with the Blue Cross some boundaries.
The role of the ancient kingdom in Britain in this union project was significant.
It seems that Shakespeare identify as symbolic in sons with the noble savages of historic Britains,
such as the fierce tattooed warriors pictured in John Stevens Atlas as the great
picture of an ancient Briton holding the beheaded head of one of his enemies.
And that's exactly what happens in force, even to when the sons kill Clayton and topple Saddam.
When imaging approaches the cave in which these men live, her address identifies a kind of colonial encounter between Explorer and Native Home.
Who's here? If anything, that's civil speak. If Savage take over land.
New world travellers frequently identified the people they encountered in the
Americas as analogous to people who had lived in Britain in the ancient past.
It was as if they were travelling in space and time at the site at the same moment.
There's something similar going on here. I think so far in Wales,
countryside is related to the ambivalent geography of Virginia and thus similarly engages with some of the same questions about authority,
centre and margins that were more used to discussing in relation to the temples and temples that seem to be Shakespeare's colonial play.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that symbolism is very close by in time.
Might be a more interesting, unsustained look at that hybridity again.
It is a helpful framework here. The borderlands between cultures, the sense of in between ness that characterises post-colonial theory.
Prakriti scientists Helmy Bahbah and Robert Young. The idea that cultures at their borders produce new hybrid forms of understanding and identity.
The two princes. The two princes. Good Arius. A number of us have Celtic names Cartwell and Polledo.
Their border crossers trickster the figures at the intersection of cultures.
The Welsh border is both an example and a metaphor for that kind of created uncomfortable mingling that we've seen.
As characteristic reassembly in its generic political and total aspects and the Roman
British border at the very end of the play is another manifestation of the same thing.
So I've been trying to answer the question about why the British agreed to pay tribute to the Romans at the
end of symbolism as a final and pointed version of the plague impulses to hybridity in terms of genre,
in terms of representative and identity politics,
in terms of the way it encodes the contested geography's of early modern England ideas of Britain and the new colonialism of the Americas.
We could think about that just in the last moments, a little bit more about in the context of the play's final scene.
More generally, numerically minded critics have identified 24 separate revelations in the play's final scene.
Everything gets revealed to us, but curiously and in a way which is structurally problematic.
They're all things that we already know. It takes a long time to have these revelations, even though they were never secret to us in the first place.
The Alkimos confession about his trickery in particular, revisits that traumatic scene in Images bedchamber in considerable detail.
The scene Iboga spent time talking about what? Thinking structurally about why the place wants to re re reinstate that.
Revisit that switz at such length at the end.
The whole final scene is an interesting coda to what we've seen at the importance of the visual interplay.
There's nothing to look at at all except for the moment when Posthumus strikes.
Imagine thinking that she's a boy. It's just a series of revelations that astonish the characters on stage,
but merely reiterate the excessive plot for us simply as a place to glory in that excessiveness.
By revisiting it all and lay all out so clearly at the very end,
more recent productions have tended to play the scene as ironic or self-conscious rather than straight.
But all is not well,
posthumous Knox Imogene to the ground and then appears to forgive her rather than acknowledge that she's done nothing to be forgiven.
And that might suggest the kind of new maturity about women, sexual conduct and its significance.
It also perpetuates the calumny from which she's tried to escape the Posthumus, as I forgive you see me.
Or I forgive you for this robot bad behaviour rather than saying there was no God.
The play's conclusion, and including the tribute paid to the Romans, suggests that the shattered,
broken world of loss, war and rejection of simply can only be healed in self-conscious fantasy,
only in the fairytale world of wicked stepmothers and miraculous victories and
birthmarks through beatings of children's considered bullying find its end,
if not quite a conclusion. Perhaps we need to see the paying of the tribute within that as a part of the commitment to the happy ending,
a play world in which war and politics become knowingly or perhaps even satirically
Disneyfied into a prince and princess romance and a declaration of peace.
Next week I'm going to talk about another problematic ending and one which is the title of its play, Teasingly Corpse.