Blooms Literary Themes - THE TRICKSTER.pdf - ymerleksi - home

190
William Shakespeare
Plays like ‘Th e Tempest’ and ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream,’
however, are particularly in need of explanatory criticism, for, on the
one hand, they possess the character of the fairy tale, which is apparently
quite beyond explanation, but, on the other hand, this fairy-tale
character of the representation is merely woven into common reality
like a couple of fragrant, exotic fl owers into a northern wreath of oak
leaves. Th e Wonderful is so closely blended with the Natural and the
Real, that the one cannot become clear if the other is not also explained.
To leave the dramas uninterpreted would be to acknowledge them mere
tales or fairy tales. But mere fairy tales they are evidently not. For while
the fairy tale never expresses astonishment at what is wonderful—
inasmuch as it does not consider it wonderful, but its own peculiar
property—in ‘Th e Tempest’ and ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream,’ the
Wonderful appears throughout rather as an actual wonder; the Magical,
the Extraordinary and the Supernatural cause as much amazement as
they would in our own everyday life. Th e dramas, therefore, evidently
take their standpoint on the ideal boundary where the airy kingdom of
the land of wonders and mystery looks into the reality of every-day life,
and conversely is looked at by it. Th ey here stand midway in connection
with both, with a foot on either side; its centre of gravity, however,
lies only on the one side, it rests, in fact, only upon the fi rm ground of
Reality. But by the fact of the Wonderful referring only to the latter, and
appearing interwoven only with actual life, it loses its independence, it
exists only for reality; only in connection with Reality can it have any
meaning and signifi cance. And just because the Wonderful does not
merely signify what it is itself, but at the same time denotes Reality,
pointing to and embracing it, this double signifi cance is obviously
symbolical or allegorical. In other words, the Wonderful is and signifi es,
not merely that which it seems to be, but something else besides, to
which it is connected as a part with its whole. Th e symbolical, however,
by reason of its very nature, requires its signifi cance to be explained; it
is no symbol, if that which it denotes cannot also be recognised. In this
case also explanatory criticism has not only to examine the unity of the
conception upon which the play is founded, but has also to explain why,
within this view of life, the Marvellous is so closely connected with the
Real, and what is its symbolical signifi cance in this connection.
[ . . . ]
If, in accordance with these preliminary remarks, we look more
closely into the Shakspearian idea of comedy in general, and its