What do you think?
Rate this book
The Heroic Image in Five Shakespearean Tragedies
Centers upon the protagonists of Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Othello, Coriolanus , and Antony and Cleopatra .Originally published in 1965.The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.
254 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1978
1 person is currently reading
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 19, 2023
another used bookstore find! one of the reviews on the back says this book attempts to "show that the tragic issue of each of these plays lies in part in the 'discrepancy between the main character's self-conception and his 'entire human reality'" and that is SO extremely my shit that i gasped aloud. this is not the first time i've had luck at this used bookstore, whoever is supplying their shakespeare collection keep it up.
i will go play by play but usually when i write these i reference the book and i currently do not have the book with me so it may be somewhat less comprehensive or comprehensible and based more on notes i made about individual parts than about the chapters as a whole.
julius caesar: proser says the conspirators claim caesar is a tyrant but all his present qualities they bring up are not tyrannical; instead they fear what he could become. however, they frame it as caesar already is a tyrant to justify their decisions. some of brutus’s monologues of him convincing himself illustrate this through the way they shift. the weaknesses the conspirators see in caesar’s character "indicate the degree to which he is incapable of power unless, in their fear…they give it to him" and ironically they give him this power by murdering him bc his presence is stronger after his death (he haunts!).
interesting discussion of freedom throughout the chapter. one point i liked was that cassius claims he can free himself from political constraints by killing himself and that men are free by nature; however cassius’s conception of caesar and the actions he takes as a result of that conception suggests cassius is not in fact free but rather constrained by his personal way of seeing the world.
it also talks about how a limitation of the play (like, for the characters working within it, not for us trying to understand it) is language, and how some important terms actually reflect the conspirators’ opinions of themselves (republicanism) and of caesar (tyranny) but neither group actually totally aligns with these associations, yet these are the accepted uses of the words even if they are inexact or even incorrect, and this shapes their actions within the play. not doing this point justice in summary but it was interesting enough for me to remember.
i believe the overall fallacy proser claims brutus holds about himself is that he is rome’s savior or hero, which is tellingly/ironically what caesar also considers himself to be. the difference is that brutus does not seek power; he just ends up given it by the conspirators anyway, which is also ironic considering his similarities w caesar. (a little foggy on this but it was something along these lines.) sara recently read allan bloom's shakespeare's politics and she says it posits brutus's stoicism is a disguise he uses to deceive not only others but also himself, and i think the two thoughts dovetail nicely.
macbeth: ngl this chapter was largely inscrutable to me. there was probably something there and this book is very readable but for whatever reason i didn't take a lot from it. discussed fate ofc. there was some discussion of (shifting?) self awareness, and there was one line i like bc it sounds metal ("having chosen himself as his own god") and is about how macbeth a) characteristically takes things into his own hands and b) subjects himself to his own judgement and justice.
othello: proser actually had one chapter that was coriolanus AND othello but it was double the length of the other chapters and discussed each play in discrete sections after the first few pages. that initial comparison was interesting, though - the reason he gives for putting them together is that othello and coriolanus are both soldier heroes and are placed into situations where soldier training cannot help them. othello has to deal with complexities of love and coriolanus has to deal with a temporarily peaceful state of rome. they are both "men of action", held in esteem, and believe their state has some obligation to them for their services, and this "gives them some warrant to believe in their own power and their own righteousness of conduct".
for the othello section specifically, i’ve forgotten the overall point but proser talks about how othello fundamentally believes that people are as they seem to be and that’s why he takes things at face value (like, it seems like desdemona is guilty bc iago sets it up that way, so othello believes it) (and it IS true that she "seems" that way even if it is not The Truth). proser also makes a comment that othello’s speech at the end converts personal tragedy into a public one, and that’s what allows him to carry out his justice (bc it’s solid footing to pull himself out of unfamiliar private emotions) and turn him from villain back towards hero.
coriolanus: this was my favorite chapter i think. i have very strong opinions about coriolanus and have yelled and/or argued about them at length multiple places, and the basis of it is basically that coriolanus is not prideful. proser claims that coriolanus IS prideful; however, he supports it using the evidence i usually use to counter that he isn't prideful and that i think a lot of arguments claiming he is prideful ignore, it's an interesting angle i hadn't considered, and, critically, it isn't STUPID. i still like my interpretation better but i can respect this one!
i think i’ll actually have to come back to this when i have my book again bc i don’t think i’ll do the nuance justice and i really did enjoy it. but basically coriolanus is so prideful in his actual abilities and holds himself as the very image of honor (so like, a concept) rather than a human. therefore admitting he cares about or values fame/praise would be to humanize himself/admit to a human weakness and he holds himself above that. (this wasn’t really discussed but i think this interpretation ties well thematically to coriolanus being treated like a god at the end.) he won’t show his wounds bc the purpose is to show that he has fought for the people and therefore has a common bond with them and he doesn't want to claim that bond; he also doesn’t want to display the human body that took those wounds.
so all his pushing off praise that i use as evidence to show he is not prideful is used here to "hide the damning truth that coriolanus is, after all, not simply the image of honor, but a man".
antony and cleopatra: this chapter closes out the book and focuses mostly on cleopatra and seems to have a higher opinion of her than antony lol. proser talks about cleopatra’s elaborate language/"poetic imagination" and how that’s the core of who she is - by telling lies and being theatrical and constructing false interpretations of herself, she is actually being true to herself.
while cleopatra is one of antony’s biggest satirists, she’s also the greatest protector of his heroic image (basically, cleopatra’s words are powerful and she uses them to bat antony’s reputation around to her own benefit). proser brings up antony’s exit in act 4 where cleopatra’s language about antony’s virtues “ennobles him; but also commands our attention away from antony towards her” and upstages him.
cleopatra’s love for antony is tied to her own self-esteem and she sees him more of a conquest and obtaining him adds to her own status - for cleopatra, love and passion is her battleground, and she’s a great strategist. we also get the line "her man-eating instincts" which is so delightful.
conclusion: clear and easy to understand, makes some interesting points, would recommend!
i will go play by play but usually when i write these i reference the book and i currently do not have the book with me so it may be somewhat less comprehensive or comprehensible and based more on notes i made about individual parts than about the chapters as a whole.
julius caesar: proser says the conspirators claim caesar is a tyrant but all his present qualities they bring up are not tyrannical; instead they fear what he could become. however, they frame it as caesar already is a tyrant to justify their decisions. some of brutus’s monologues of him convincing himself illustrate this through the way they shift. the weaknesses the conspirators see in caesar’s character "indicate the degree to which he is incapable of power unless, in their fear…they give it to him" and ironically they give him this power by murdering him bc his presence is stronger after his death (he haunts!).
interesting discussion of freedom throughout the chapter. one point i liked was that cassius claims he can free himself from political constraints by killing himself and that men are free by nature; however cassius’s conception of caesar and the actions he takes as a result of that conception suggests cassius is not in fact free but rather constrained by his personal way of seeing the world.
it also talks about how a limitation of the play (like, for the characters working within it, not for us trying to understand it) is language, and how some important terms actually reflect the conspirators’ opinions of themselves (republicanism) and of caesar (tyranny) but neither group actually totally aligns with these associations, yet these are the accepted uses of the words even if they are inexact or even incorrect, and this shapes their actions within the play. not doing this point justice in summary but it was interesting enough for me to remember.
i believe the overall fallacy proser claims brutus holds about himself is that he is rome’s savior or hero, which is tellingly/ironically what caesar also considers himself to be. the difference is that brutus does not seek power; he just ends up given it by the conspirators anyway, which is also ironic considering his similarities w caesar. (a little foggy on this but it was something along these lines.) sara recently read allan bloom's shakespeare's politics and she says it posits brutus's stoicism is a disguise he uses to deceive not only others but also himself, and i think the two thoughts dovetail nicely.
macbeth: ngl this chapter was largely inscrutable to me. there was probably something there and this book is very readable but for whatever reason i didn't take a lot from it. discussed fate ofc. there was some discussion of (shifting?) self awareness, and there was one line i like bc it sounds metal ("having chosen himself as his own god") and is about how macbeth a) characteristically takes things into his own hands and b) subjects himself to his own judgement and justice.
othello: proser actually had one chapter that was coriolanus AND othello but it was double the length of the other chapters and discussed each play in discrete sections after the first few pages. that initial comparison was interesting, though - the reason he gives for putting them together is that othello and coriolanus are both soldier heroes and are placed into situations where soldier training cannot help them. othello has to deal with complexities of love and coriolanus has to deal with a temporarily peaceful state of rome. they are both "men of action", held in esteem, and believe their state has some obligation to them for their services, and this "gives them some warrant to believe in their own power and their own righteousness of conduct".
for the othello section specifically, i’ve forgotten the overall point but proser talks about how othello fundamentally believes that people are as they seem to be and that’s why he takes things at face value (like, it seems like desdemona is guilty bc iago sets it up that way, so othello believes it) (and it IS true that she "seems" that way even if it is not The Truth). proser also makes a comment that othello’s speech at the end converts personal tragedy into a public one, and that’s what allows him to carry out his justice (bc it’s solid footing to pull himself out of unfamiliar private emotions) and turn him from villain back towards hero.
coriolanus: this was my favorite chapter i think. i have very strong opinions about coriolanus and have yelled and/or argued about them at length multiple places, and the basis of it is basically that coriolanus is not prideful. proser claims that coriolanus IS prideful; however, he supports it using the evidence i usually use to counter that he isn't prideful and that i think a lot of arguments claiming he is prideful ignore, it's an interesting angle i hadn't considered, and, critically, it isn't STUPID. i still like my interpretation better but i can respect this one!
i think i’ll actually have to come back to this when i have my book again bc i don’t think i’ll do the nuance justice and i really did enjoy it. but basically coriolanus is so prideful in his actual abilities and holds himself as the very image of honor (so like, a concept) rather than a human. therefore admitting he cares about or values fame/praise would be to humanize himself/admit to a human weakness and he holds himself above that. (this wasn’t really discussed but i think this interpretation ties well thematically to coriolanus being treated like a god at the end.) he won’t show his wounds bc the purpose is to show that he has fought for the people and therefore has a common bond with them and he doesn't want to claim that bond; he also doesn’t want to display the human body that took those wounds.
so all his pushing off praise that i use as evidence to show he is not prideful is used here to "hide the damning truth that coriolanus is, after all, not simply the image of honor, but a man".
antony and cleopatra: this chapter closes out the book and focuses mostly on cleopatra and seems to have a higher opinion of her than antony lol. proser talks about cleopatra’s elaborate language/"poetic imagination" and how that’s the core of who she is - by telling lies and being theatrical and constructing false interpretations of herself, she is actually being true to herself.
while cleopatra is one of antony’s biggest satirists, she’s also the greatest protector of his heroic image (basically, cleopatra’s words are powerful and she uses them to bat antony’s reputation around to her own benefit). proser brings up antony’s exit in act 4 where cleopatra’s language about antony’s virtues “ennobles him; but also commands our attention away from antony towards her” and upstages him.
cleopatra’s love for antony is tied to her own self-esteem and she sees him more of a conquest and obtaining him adds to her own status - for cleopatra, love and passion is her battleground, and she’s a great strategist. we also get the line "her man-eating instincts" which is so delightful.
conclusion: clear and easy to understand, makes some interesting points, would recommend!
Displaying 1 of 1 review