Counterfeiting the deep tragedian and dropping millstones from the eyes : the rhetorical connection in Shakespeare's tragedy (some brief notes)

184 C o u n terfeitin g th e d eep trag ed ian an d d r o p p in g m il l s t o n e s f r o m t h e e y e s – t h e rh eto ric al c o n n ec tio n in Sh akespeare’s trag ed y (so m e brief n o tes) N uno Pinto R ibeiro O p o rto U n iv e rsity / C . E . T . U . P . Elizabethan tragedy provides copious exem ples both of the enticing role of rhetorical m anipulation and the enriching art of persuasion, and the reference to Shakespearian tragedy substantiates the am biguous sta tu s of the speaker and the m isleading pow er of w ords. This paper aim s at illustrating this concern w ith language and w ith the accom plished orator and perform er as a figure often deprived of feeling of pity and sym pathy. E lizab ethan traged y has rhetoric an d rhetorical d evices at its core, adding to the traditional concern of treatises and studies on the art of the orator or on the w it of persuasion, either in the A ristotelian and C icero n ia n le g a cies o r in th eir m ed iev a l a n d R en a issa n ce seq u en ce, th e em phasis dictated by the suggestive pow er of w ords or the captivating virtue of speech. A s a m atter of fact, in the sym biotic and crossfertilizing languages involved in a play w ritten by Shakespeare and his 185 C o u n terfeitin g th e d eep trag ed ian an d d r o p p in g m il l s t o n e s f r o m t h e e y e s – t h e rh eto ric al c o n n ec tio n in Sh akespeare’s trag ed y (so m e brief n o tes) N uno Pinto R ibeiro O p o rto U n iv e rsity / C . E . T . U . P . Elizabethan tragedy provides copious exem ples both of the enticing role of rhetorical m anipulation and the enriching art of persuasion, and the reference to Shakespearian tragedy substantiates the am biguous sta tu s of the speaker and the m isleading pow er of w ords. This paper aim s at illustrating this concern w ith language and w ith the accom plished orator and perform er as a figure often deprived of feeling of pity and sym pathy. E lizab ethan traged y has rhetoric an d rhetorical d evices at its core, adding to the traditional concern of treatises and studies on the art of the orator or on the w it of persuasion, either in the A ristotelian and C icero n ia n le g a cies o r in th eir m ed iev a l a n d R en a issa n ce seq u en ce, th e em phasis dictated by the suggestive pow er of w ords or the captivating virtue of speech. A s a m atter of fact, in the sym biotic and crossfertilizing languages involved in a play w ritten by Shakespeare and his N uno Pinto R ibeiro fello w d ra m a tists, n o m a tter h o w v ita l th e sp ecta cu la r m o m en t a s th e full consum m ation of the w ords on the stage claim s to be, the fascination of speech acting in beauty or in evocation (having as a rule the bare support of space and scenery lacking in gorgeous or sophisticated panoply of technical possibilities), text and w ords join w hat is to be seen (‘theatrum ’) and w hat is to be heard (‘audience’, ‘audire’, those w ho are there to listen). Public occasions describe and identify genres of rhetorical speech – forensic speech, deliberative speech, epideictic speech -, and theatre and dram a plays the role of an educational source of disputatio and argum ent at schools and universities, going hand in hand w ith the m ultifarious aspects of daily life and experience. The stage is a trem endous rival of the pulpit, and actors and preachers are qualified instrum ents of inform ation, hystrionic agents of persuasion and revelation, deceit and illusion. R hetoric m atters w hen the actor, or the character he em bodies, finds in speech a prim ary reference of his identification. Shylock, the old obstinate m iser, exposes his obsessions in repetition, ‘let him look to h is b o n d , le t h im lo o k to h is b o n d ’, a n d h is a rtic le o f fa ith in th e re a d y - m a d e p ro v erb ‘F a st b in d , fa st fin d - / A p ro v erb n ev er sta le in th rifty m ind’ ( T he M erchant of V enice, 2. 3. 552-53 ) 1 , Polonius, K ing C laudius’ affected adviser, displays his vanity and vacuity in redundancies and platitudes, even w hen he claim s accuracy and p ro m ises to rev ert to p la in n e ss o f sty le – ‘M a d a m , I sw e a r I u se n o a rt a t a ll. / T h a t h e is m a d , ‘tis tru e ; ‘tis tru e ‘tis p ity , / A n d p ity ‘tis ‘tis tru e – a fo o lish fig u re, / B u t fa rew ell it, fo r I w ill u se n o a rt,’( H am let, 2 . 2 . 97-100) -, H olofernes exhibits his pedantry in the convolutions of his ludicrous speech – ‘The posterior of the day, m ost generous sir, is 186 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian liable, congruent, and m easurable for the afternoon. The w ord is w ell cu lled , ch o ice, sw eet, a n d a p t, I d o a ssu re y o u , sir, I d o a ssu re ’ ( L o v e ’s Labour’s Lost, 5.1. 77-80), Falstaff, exposed by Prince H arry in the tavern ( 1 H en ry IV 1 .2 ), is th e fu n n y m erry ro g u e th a t still a m u ses h is jolly good fellow s w ith the absurd deviousness of his p ro se argum ent, H otspur proclaim s his extravagant sense of honour – ‘Im agination of som e great exploit / D ives him beyond the bound of patience’ (1. 3. 197-198), as the shrew d and pragm atic N orthum berland observes – in passionate hyperbolic ejaculations – ‘By heaven, m ethinks it w ere an easy leap / To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced m oon, / … /’ (1. 3. 199ff), an insinuated tragic defeat ratified later on, in the sacrificial tone of this brave knight out of joint on the eve of the final battle – ‘C o m e, let u s tak e a m u ster sp eed ily. D o o m sd ay is n ear; d ie all, d ie m arrily’ (4. 2.134-135).’; and w ho else could say those beautiful and d elica te v erses o f th e su b v erted e p ith a la m io n , the apostrophe to ‘love perform ing night’ in the fem ale m ost charm ing voice but fair Juliet ( R o m e o a n d Ju lie t, the o pening of 3. 2 .), or could give form an d m e a n in g to m u tu a l lo v e in a sh a re d so n n e t w ith th e g e n te p ilg rim in th e b a ll o f th e C a p u lets (1 . 5 . 9 0 ff) a n d m a k e w ith h im th e triv ia l su b lim e in the night enchantm ent in the balcony scene (2. 1.)? A nd does not O th e llo , th e g re a t g e n e ra l o f V e n ic e , d isp la y h is se lf-a sse rtiv e n e ss w h e n , su rro u n d e d o f th re a te n in g so lic ito rs, ra isin g h is te rse v o ic e o f c o m m a n d in disarm ing authority w ith the so quoted ‘K eep up your bright sw ords, fo r th e d ew w ill ru st’em ’ ( O thello, 1 . 2 . 6 0 ), an d later, b efo re th e Senate, w hen the deliberative occasion concerning the m ovem ents of th e T u rk s giv es w a y to th e ju d icia l m o m en t o f th e a rraigm en t o f th e M oor, does he not im press the audience w ith the calm potency of his 187 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian liable, congruent, and m easurable for the afternoon. The w ord is w ell cu lled , ch o ice, sw eet, a n d a p t, I d o a ssu re y o u , sir, I d o a ssu re ’ ( L o v e ’s Labour’s Lost, 5.1. 77-80), Falstaff, exposed by Prince H arry in the tavern ( 1 H e n ry IV 1 .2 ), is th e fu n n y m erry ro g u e th a t still a m u ses h is jolly good fellow s w ith the absurd deviousness of his p ro se argum ent, H otspur proclaim s his extravagant sense of honour – ‘Im agination of som e great exploit / D ives him beyond the bound of patience’ (1. 3. 197-198), as the shrew d and pragm atic N orthum berland observes – in passionate hyperbolic ejaculations – ‘By heaven, m ethinks it w ere an easy leap / To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced m oon, / … /’ (1. 3. 199ff), an insinuated tragic defeat ratified later on, in the sacrificial tone of this brave knight out of joint on the eve of the final battle – ‘C o m e, let u s tak e a m u ster sp eed ily. D o o m sd ay is n ear; d ie all, d ie m arrily’ (4. 2.134-135).’; and w ho else could say those beautiful and d elica te v erses o f th e su b v erted e p ith a la m io n , the apostrophe to ‘love perform ing night’ in the fem ale m ost charm ing voice but fair Juliet ( R o m e o a n d Ju lie t, the o pening of 3. 2 .), or could give form an d m e a n in g to m u tu a l lo v e in a sh a re d so n n e t w ith th e g e n te p ilg rim in th e b a ll o f th e C a p u lets (1 . 5 . 9 0 ff) a n d m a k e w ith h im th e triv ia l su b lim e in the night enchantm ent in the balcony scene (2. 1.)? A nd does not O th e llo , th e g re a t g e n e ra l o f V e n ic e , d isp la y h is se lf-a sse rtiv e n e ss w h e n , su rro u n d e d o f th re a te n in g so lic ito rs, ra isin g h is te rse v o ic e o f c o m m a n d in disarm ing authority w ith the so quoted ‘K eep up your bright sw ords, fo r th e d ew w ill ru st’em ’ ( O thello, 1 . 2 . 6 0 ), an d later, b efo re th e Senate, w hen the deliberative occasion concerning the m ovem ents of th e T u rk s giv es w a y to th e ju d icia l m o m en t o f th e a rraigm en t o f th e M oor, does he not im press the audience w ith the calm potency of his N uno Pinto R ibeiro eloquence, tim ely m odelled w ith the hum ble peroration of the soldier alleged ly d ep rived o f th e sk ills o f th e o rato r - ‘… R u d e am I in m y sp ee c h , / A n d little b le sse d w ith th e so ft p h ra se o f p e a c e , /… /’ (1 . 3 . 8 1 - 82) and conjure the suprem acy of his unassailable ethos ? The lo c u s c la ssic u s of the w ord in action in a public occasion is perhaps to be found in A ct 3 scene 2 of Shakespeare’s Ju liu s C a e sa r . M a rcu s B ru tu s, th e lea d er o f th e co n sp ira to rs th a t w ill k ill C a e sa r – ‘a bleeding business’ perform ed by ‘sacrificers, not butchers’, as the idealistic noble R om an insists on – addresses the plebeians in a plain, balanced and classical prose, and facts are presented in an even testim ony, w ith poise and deliberate rational com m and. The reluctant conspirator had exam ined w ith m ethod and scruple his inner c o n flic tin g v o ic e s ( v. g. 2. 1. 10-39); now the orator appeals to the sc ru tin y o f th e c itiz e n s, h is sty le is n o t h ig h o r lo fty , a s it w o u ld b e c o m e the epideictic laudatory speech, because w hat is at a stake is not the exaltation of the virtues of the deceased m an of state, or the qualities of friend and com panion, but the justification of an act that should be taken as a painful cruel necessity that goes beyond personal ties and affections and aim s rather at the preservation of the dignity and liberty of R om e threatened by an im pending danger: ‘not that I loved C aesar less, but that I loved R om e m ore’, he asserts w ith em phasis and conviction. A strong prerequisite of persuasion is the ethos of the speaker, his authority as an honourable m an and a respected citizen – ‘Believe m e for m ine honour, and have respect for m ine honour, that yo u m ay b elieve’ – an d h is argu m ent, served b y a regu lar sw ayin g rhythm and balanced structure – ‘A s C aesar loved m e, I w eep for him ; a s h e w a s fo rtu n a te , I re jo ic e a t it; a s h e w a s v a lia n t, I h o n o u r h im ; b u t, 188 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian as he w as am bitious, I slew him ’ – does not produce its intended effects on the crow d, surrendered to the elegant oratory, and ignorant of the purposes of the orator´s voice and the urge for reasoning and cool ponderation; the Plebeians are ready to replace the dictator that never w as by the brand new absolute ruler to be (‘Let him be C aesar’ /… / C a e sa r b e tte r p a rts / S h a ll b e c ro w n e d in B ru tu s’). A nyw ay ‘purgation’ cannot prevail over ‘m urder’ w hen the dialogical m om ent is denied and the unconclusive narrative is taken over by an alternative voice ready to subvert the precarious version of the generous noble R om an. H is cunning adversary speaks in verse, a m ore appropriate vehicle for the creation and m anipulation of em otions. Brutus is absent, a sign of his inconditional trust in his recalcitrant fellow traveller, thus entitled as the herald of the cause: in fact a suicidal m ove that erases dialogue, gives free vent to the rem arkable rh eto rica l a b ilities o f C a esa r’s p ro tég é, a n d d ev a sta tes a n a rg u m en t in drastic need of support and consistence. The orator is inviting in his exordium : ‘Friends, countrym en, lend m e your ears’ is decidedly w arm er and m ore intim ate than the terse and conventional ‘R om ans, countrym en, and lovers, hear m e for m y cause, and be silent, that you m ay hear’ of the preceding speaker; and his prom ised apology – ‘D o grace to C aesar’s co rp se, an d grace h is sp eech / T en d in g to C aesar’s g lo ries, w h ic h M a rk A n to n y , /B y o u r p e rm issio n , is a llo w ed to m a k e’ -, that seals the fatal gesture of the credulous Brutus, if not inform ing the m ain intention of his in v e n tio , it a n te cip a tes, a t lea st, a b rief ce re m o n y of m ourning (‘I com e to bury C aesar, not to praise him ’.) w ith further in fle x io n s o f d e v a sta tin g im p o rt. W h a t fo llo w s is a lso w e ll-k n o w n – a convoluted discourse that gropes at possibilities in its captivating 189 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian as he w as am bitious, I slew him ’ – does not produce its intended effects on the crow d, surrendered to the elegant oratory, and ignorant of the purposes of the orator´s voice and the urge for reasoning and cool ponderation; the Plebeians are ready to replace the dictator that never w as by the brand new absolute ruler to be (‘Let him be C aesar’ /… / C a e sa r b e tte r p a rts / S h a ll b e c ro w n e d in B ru tu s’). A nyw ay ‘purgation’ cannot prevail over ‘m urder’ w hen the dialogical m om ent is denied and the unconclusive narrative is taken over by an alternative voice ready to subvert the precarious version of the generous noble R om an. H is cunning adversary speaks in verse, a m ore appropriate vehicle for the creation and m anipulation of em otions. Brutus is absent, a sign of his inconditional trust in his recalcitrant fellow traveller, thus entitled as the herald of the cause: in fact a suicidal m ove that erases dialogue, gives free vent to the rem arkable rh eto rica l a b ilities o f C a esa r’s p ro tég é, a n d d ev a sta tes a n a rg u m en t in drastic need of support and consistence. The orator is inviting in his exordium : ‘Friends, countrym en, lend m e your ears’ is decidedly w arm er and m ore intim ate than the terse and conventional ‘R om ans, countrym en, and lovers, hear m e for m y cause, and be silent, that you m ay hear’ of the preceding speaker; and his prom ised apology – ‘D o grace to C aesar’s co rp se, an d grace h is sp eech / T en d in g to C aesar’s g lo ries, w h ic h M a rk A n to n y , /B y o u r p e rm issio n , is a llo w ed to m a k e’ -, that seals the fatal gesture of the credulous Brutus, if not inform ing the m ain intention of his in v e n tio , it a n te cip a tes, a t lea st, a b rief ce re m o n y of m ourning (‘I com e to bury C aesar, not to praise him ’.) w ith further in fle x io n s o f d e v a sta tin g im p o rt. W h a t fo llo w s is a lso w e ll-k n o w n – a convoluted discourse that gropes at possibilities in its captivating N uno Pinto R ibeiro insinuations, and the adversative, conditional or concessive clauses tw ist and underm ine Brutus’ stance and jeopardize the integrity of his ethos : ‘B u t B ru tu s sa y s h e w a s a m b itio u s, A nd Brutus is an honourable m an. /… / Y e t B ru tu s sa y s h e w a s a m b itio u s, A nd Brutus is an honourable m an.’ It is a m odest and honest m an w ho addresses the assem bly – ‘I speak n o t to d isp ro v e w h a t B ru tu s sp o k e, / B u t h ere I am to sp eak w h at I know ’ – and later on a touching peroration w ill vibrate in the sam e to n e – ‘ I a m n o o ra to r, a s B ru tu s is, / B u t a s y o u k n o w m e a ll, a p la in blunt m an, / That love m y friend;’, reviving the contrast betw een the deceitful artifice of the flow ery speech and the plain unadorned w ords of the sim ple truth; his testim ony w ill inflam e the passions of the com m on people, m oving on by careful steps, testing reactions, w ith the m ost accute and operative kairos , o r sen se o f tim e, a p recio u s item in th e leg a cy o f th e a ccco m p lish ed o ra to r. T h e a lleg ed ‘a m b itio n ’ is ru led out by m eans of the joint operation of entim em e , or rhetorical sy llo g ism ( v. g. A n am bitious m an grabs a kingly crow n w henever it is o ffered to h im / C a esa r th rice refu sed a k in g ly cro w n , ergo C aesar is not an am bitious m an) and topoi found in the m ost basic experience (the non-scientific proof, in A ristotelian tradition – to be just to his friends, to bring captives to R om e, to feel sym pathy tow ards the poor, a n d ev ery th in g th a t th e o ra to r h a s y et in sto re to d escrib e th e m a n , a ll that clashes against label and allegation that w ould vindicate the bloody action of the conspirators); and the ‘honourable m an’, a phrase 190 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian so recurrently conjured to characterize Brutus, slides dow n and becom es the euphem istic covering for vice and iniquity, the paradiastole w orking at the level of an argum ent in utram que partem and dem olishing a refashioned m urder – the m anly deed of the noble sacrificers, thus exposing the nature of Brutus’ undertaking in the paradox that exploits the vulnerable pathos o f th e cro w d a n d u rg es a n im possible com posed discrim ination: ‘O judgem ent! Thou are fled to brutish beasts, A n d m e n h a v e lo st th e ir re a so n . /… /’ (se e a lso th e o p e n p u n o n Brutus ). A ngels do not stab, and Brutus w as C aesar’s angel, ‘Ingratitude, m ore stro n g th a n tra ito rs’ a rm s’, w a s th e cru cia l fa cto r in g re a t C a e sa r’s fa ll – the audience w eep before the hystrionic captivating perform ance, the im p ressive a c tio or copious delivery, appropriately spiced by the iconic referen ce, ‘E v en a t th e b a se o f P o m p ey ’s sta tu e, / W h ich a ll th e w h ile ran blood, great C aesar fell’, and the pow erful sym bol provided by the tim e ly oxym oron o f th e v isu a l p ro o f – ‘I tell y o u th a t w h ich y o u rse lv es do know / Show you sw eet C aesar’s w ounds, poor poor dum b m ouths, / A nd bid them speak for m e’. Then the last w ill and testam ent, another trum ph in a w ide range of resources, fuelling the insidious suggestion of m utiny behind the m ask of w isdom and restraint ( v . g ., ‘I sp ea k n o t to disprove w hat Brutus spoke, / But here I am to speak w hat I do know ’, 101-102). Pow er lies in w ords and Brutus’ naïve great expectations in the persuasive nature of lo g o s an d reaso n cru m b les dow n in face of the irruption of the corrupting force of pathos and inordinate passions, perhaps, as Q uentin Skinner w rites, in a victory m a in ly d irected b y th e rh eto rica l fig u re o f paradiastole, th e in stru m en t 191 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian so recurrently conjured to characterize Brutus, slides dow n and becom es the euphem istic covering for vice and iniquity, the paradiastole w orking at the level of an argum ent in utram que partem and dem olishing a refashioned m urder – the m anly deed of the noble sacrificers, thus exposing the nature of Brutus’ undertaking in the paradox that exploits the vulnerable pathos o f th e cro w d a n d u rg es a n im possible com posed discrim ination: ‘O judgem ent! Thou are fled to brutish beasts, A n d m e n h a v e lo st th e ir re a so n . /… /’ (se e a lso th e o p e n p u n o n Brutus ). A ngels do not stab, and Brutus w as C aesar’s angel, ‘Ingratitude, m ore stro n g th a n tra ito rs’ a rm s’, w a s th e cru cia l fa cto r in g re a t C a e sa r’s fa ll – the audience w eep before the hystrionic captivating perform ance, the im p ressive a c tio or copious delivery, appropriately spiced by the iconic referen ce, ‘E v en a t th e b a se o f P o m p ey ’s sta tu e, / W h ich a ll th e w h ile ran blood, great C aesar fell’, and the pow erful sym bol provided by the tim e ly oxym oron o f th e v isu a l p ro o f – ‘I tell y o u th a t w h ich y o u rse lv es do know / Show you sw eet C aesar’s w ounds, poor poor dum b m ouths, / A nd bid them speak for m e’. Then the last w ill and testam ent, another trum ph in a w ide range of resources, fuelling the insidious suggestion of m utiny behind the m ask of w isdom and restraint ( v . g ., ‘I sp ea k n o t to disprove w hat Brutus spoke, / But here I am to speak w hat I do know ’, 101-102). Pow er lies in w ords and Brutus’ naïve great expectations in the persuasive nature of lo g o s an d reaso n cru m b les dow n in face of the irruption of the corrupting force of pathos and inordinate passions, perhaps, as Q uentin Skinner w rites, in a victory m a in ly d irected b y th e rh eto rica l fig u re o f paradiastole, th e in stru m en t N uno Pinto R ibeiro o f ex cu se, acco rd in g to H en ry P each am in h is T h e A rte o f E n glish Poesie (1589) – ‘U nlike Falstaff, or even Shylock, Brutus cannot sim ply be dism issed for attem pting, in Peacham ’s phrase, to oppose the truth by false term s. But n o r is h e a b le to p ro v id e a n u n a ssa ila b le ju stific a tio n o f h is a c t. W a s h e a p u rg er o r m erely a m u rd erer? It is p a rt o f h is tra g ed y , w e a re m a d e to realise, that th is is a qu estio n w ith o ut an answ er: it w ill alw ays be p o ssib le to a rg u e in u tra m q u e p a rtem , o n eith er sid e o f th e ca se . S u c h is the pow er of rhetoric; m ore specifically, such is the pow er of p a ra d ia sto le .’, ‘P a ra d ia sto le : re d e sc rib in g th e v ic e s a s v irtu e s’.2 D ram a is dialogue and conflict, negotiation betw een contrary positions, and so is rhetoric; on the stage each character or faction b rin g s a g lim p se o f tru th , ea c h c a u se h a s to b e p o n d ere d in rela tio n to the w hole w eb of possibilities the action provides us w ith. The audience is there to evaluate and judge and deliberate. In Ju liu s C aesar M a rk A n to n y rejo ices in h is su ccess: ‘N o w let it w o rk . M isch ief, th o u art afoot, / Take thou w hat course thou w ilt’ (3. 2. 261-263) is the blissful outburst of the victorious antagonist; and in spite of the im pressive projection of C aesar’s shadow to the second half of the actio n , w h ich en titles h im as th e tragic h ero th at gives th e p lay its nam e, it is the idealistic and generous M arcus Brutus w ho catches our attention and sym pathy. But w hat happens w hen the hero is a villain that know s no pity and is u tterly clo sed to a n y sen se o f co m m u n ity ? If C a esa r w a s, a fter a ll, n o t am bitious, and Brutus w as a conspirator m a lg ré lu i , h o w ca n w e ta k e the heroic em inence of the assum ed m alefactor that our conscience and our better selves w ould reject in lim in e ? R h eto ric m a y b e o n e o f th e sources of a puzzling seduction. In the R enaissance rhetoric w as seen as 192 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian a basic instrum ent of education and a key com panion to public life. A social paradygm of the gentlem an and courtier – O phelia’s w ords that m ourn H am let’s apparent transform ation and decline com e to m ind at once, or the supercilious and relaxed pose of the young m an in Bronzino’s portrait, an eloquent im age of the sp rezzatu ra, th e nonchalance of a fam iliar intercourse w ith culture in a sophisticated m ilieu – suggested flexibility and adaptation as ingredients for the fine art of living, caution in behaviour and conversation, as C astiglione and G racián advise in their handbooks of prom otion and survival, and w hen it com es to the exercise of pow er, the m ost dispassionate or cynical m inds w ould advocate, given their view s of hum an nature and condition - ´… m en are w retched creatures w ho w ould not keep their w ord to you, you need not keep your w ord to them ’, ‘a flexible disposition, varying as fortune and circum stances dictate’ 3 . F le x ib ility is a passw ord in R ichard of G loucester´s w ords and deeds. A nd since the very beginning of R ic h a rd III the hero displays the skills of an a c c o m p lish e d rh e to ric ia n in lo v e w ith h is c ra ft. In th e first fa m o u s lin e s of the play – ‘ N o w is th e w in te r o f o u r d isc o n te n t M ade glorious sum m er by this sun of Y ork, A nd all the clouds that loured upon our house In the deep bosom of the ocean buried. N ow are our brow s bound w ith victorious w reaths, O ur bruisèd arm s hung up for m onum ents, O u r ste rn a la ru m s c h a n g e d to m e rry m e e tin g s, O u r d re a fu l m a rc h e s to d e lig h fu l m e a su re s.’ - the speaker accum ulates m etaphors, alliterations, internal rhym es, puns, anaphoric structures, … and he sustains his ingenuous verve to 199 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian entim em e or rhetorical syllogism (V enetian w om en are used to private vices and public virtues, D esdem ona is a V enetian w om an, ergo … ) – do th eir w o rk w ith o verp o w erin g effects. T he tim in g, o r kairos , is perfect, it directs the enticed hero through a line of associations to the final revelation of the bare and crude truth, confirm ing lim inar fears and repressed intuitions, w ith a seal of adam ant force of persuasion for conclusive evidence apparently having been found out by O thello h im self. N o th in g w ill co m e o f n o th in g . T h e fa lse su b sta n tia lity o f th e ‘ocular proof’ and the m anipulation of C assio and Bianca in th e p la y in the play w ill then produce their effects in the m om ent w hen the victim is n o m o re a b le to th in k a n d d iscrim in a te. In h is via sinuosa th e h ero assim ilates the im agery of his foe, pervaded by lascivious anim al references, violent outbursts of destructive energy, sinister rem arks announcing m urderous deeds; and deliberate control of speech and a ctio n g iv es w a y to sh a ttered fits a n d sta rts, self-a b jectio n a n d b ro k en speech. D esdem ona’s sacrifice is a black ritual of blood and expiation, perform ed by a m esm erized priest obsessed w ith the cruel necessity of p u rific a tio n . W h a t c a n sa v e O th e llo fro m th is c rim in a l d e g ra d a tio n a n d rescue him as a tragic hero? W hat redeem s the hero in our eyes? Besides the assum ption of guilt and the acceptance of punishm ent (‘/… O cu rsèd , cu rsèd sla v e! / W h ip m e, y e d ev ils,/ F ro m th e p o ssesssio n o f this heavenly sight! / Blow m e about in w inds! R oast m e in sulphur! / W ash m e in the step-dow n gulfs of liquid fire!’, 5.2.283-287), the rhetorical outline of the hero’s speech, ‘the O thelo m usic’, as W ilson K n ig h t c a lls it in a fa m o u s e ssa y 4 , o r th e id e a o f lo ss a n d w a ste th a t th e protagonist registers in his last m om ents, converge in redem ptive m otion. It tis the voice of grave and fascinating eloquence w hat readers N uno Pinto R ibeiro keep in m ind w hen books close or andiences bustle in rum ourous a g ita tio n to th e e x it; a n d su ffe rin g , th e to rm en tin g p a in th a t g o e s h a n d in hand w ith the course of dam nation and that only im agination on th is sid e o f th e theatrum m undi can pay due tribute to. S o to o in M a cb eth . The protagonist pours the m ilk of concord into hell w h en h e giv es in to th e in stru m en ts o f d a rk n ess an d , u rged b y L a d y M acbeth’s solicitations, a m ighty echo of the W eird Sisters’ encantations, stops up t’access and passage to rem orse. W hen touched by tem ptation, he cannot fully cope w ith the strange stirrings in his bosom , and tries to give them form and m eaning: ‘If it w e re d o n e w h e n ‘tis d o n e , th e n ‘tw e re w e ll If it w e re d o n e q u ic k ly . If th e a ssa ssin a tio n C ould tram m el up the consequence, and catch W ith th e su rc e a se su c c e ss – th a t b u t th is b lo w M ig h t b e th e b e -a ll a n d th e e n d -a ll! – h e re , But here, upon this bank and shoal of tim e, W e ’d ju m p th e life to c o m e . B u t in th o se c a se s W e still h a v e ju d g e m e n t h e re – th a t w e b u t te a c h Bloody instructions, w hich, being taught, return To plague the inventor. This even-handed justice C om m ends the ingredience of our poisoned chalice T o o u r o w n lip s. /… /’ (1 . 7 . 1 -1 2 ) A lo n e o n th e sta g e a n d in th e m id st o f a d e lib era tiv e p ro c ess, M a c b eth exam ines his w ishes regarding his view s of the life to com e, acknow ledges the enorm ity of a crim e to com m it upon his virtuous liege and guest, and interrogates his conscience. The unbearable tension gives to th e sp eech an erratic co u rse, ryth m an d rep etitio n s b rin g to m in d th e in ca n ta tio n s o f th e im p erfect sp ea k ers, la y em p h a sis u p o n a distressing progress charged w ith inflections and diverse attitudes and feelin gs strugglin g in th e speak er’s breast for regim ent. A gain st his 200 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian b etter se lf, h e w ill strik e a b lo w th a t w ill k ill tim e – a n d w ill u ltim a tely bind him to the ever-m oving w heel of dry Fortune (‘Tom orrow , and tom orrow , and tom orrow ’), deprive him of the blessings that accom panies old age, ‘A s honour, love, obedience, troops of friends’, an d d ress h im fo r d u sty d eath . H e w ill fin d in h is w ife a p ersu asive accom plice, ready to deny her sex and nature (in her sinister conjuration of the ‘spirits / That tender on m ortal thoughts’ and the invocation of ‘thick night’ and its protective blank of the dark) and to exhort her husband harping on the cord of m aleness and m ale integrity in b ra v e M a c b e th (‘B u t screw y o u r co u ra g e to th e stic k in g p la ce’) w ith th e irresistib le u rge reverb eratin g in a p atriarcal u n iverse p reo rd ain ed by the suprem e virtue of courage in the battlefield and pervaded by stra n g e im a g es o f d ea th , stra n g e im a g es o f b lo o d a n d stra n g e screa m s o f d e a th . M a c b e th fe e ls n o p ity – th e a ssa u lt o n B a n q u o a n d F le a n c e b y th e h ired m u rd erers (w h o are reck less o f w h at th ey d o to sp ite th e w o rld , o r w o u ld set th eir liv es o n a n y ch a n ce to m en d th eir w retch ed lives), or later the ravaging incursion in M acduff’s castle and the sla u g h ter o f ‘H is w ife , h is b a b es, a n d a ll u n fo rtu n a te so u ls / T h a t tra c e him in his line’ (4. 2. 151-152) are clam orous evidence of his ferocity. The violent appropriation of the crow n – a fruitless crow n and a b a rren scep tre – w ill a fflict h im w ith a n a g o n izin g feelin g o f lo ss a n d rep ro b atio n (M acb eth sh all sleep n o m ore, an d h is eternal jew el is given to the com m on enem y of m an). Terrible dream s and the anxiety of an unfulfilled task torture him - ‘O full of scorpions is m y m ind, d ea r w ife’ (3 . 2 . 3 6 ), h e co n fid es to h is p a rtn er in ev il in ex cru cia tin g p a in . It is th e p o in t o f n o retu rn (‘I a m in b lo o d / S o step p ed in so fa r that should I w ade no m ore, / R eturning w ere as tedious as go o’er., 3. 201 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian b etter se lf, h e w ill strik e a b lo w th a t w ill k ill tim e – a n d w ill u ltim a tely bind him to the ever-m oving w heel of dry Fortune (‘Tom orrow , and tom orrow , and tom orrow ’), deprive him of the blessings that accom panies old age, ‘A s honour, love, obedience, troops of friends’, an d d ress h im fo r d u sty d eath . H e w ill fin d in h is w ife a p ersu asive accom plice, ready to deny her sex and nature (in her sinister conjuration of the ‘spirits / That tender on m ortal thoughts’ and the invocation of ‘thick night’ and its protective blank of the dark) and to exhort her husband harping on the cord of m aleness and m ale integrity in b ra v e M a c b e th (‘B u t screw y o u r co u ra g e to th e stic k in g p la ce’) w ith th e irresistib le u rge reverb eratin g in a p atriarcal u n iverse p reo rd ain ed by the suprem e virtue of courage in the battlefield and pervaded by stra n g e im a g es o f d ea th , stra n g e im a g es o f b lo o d a n d stra n g e screa m s o f d e a th . M a c b e th fe e ls n o p ity – th e a ssa u lt o n B a n q u o a n d F le a n c e b y th e h ired m u rd erers (w h o are reck less o f w h at th ey d o to sp ite th e w o rld , o r w o u ld set th eir liv es o n a n y ch a n ce to m en d th eir w retch ed lives), or later the ravaging incursion in M acduff’s castle and the sla u g h ter o f ‘H is w ife , h is b a b es, a n d a ll u n fo rtu n a te so u ls / T h a t tra c e him in his line’ (4. 2. 151-152) are clam orous evidence of his ferocity. The violent appropriation of the crow n – a fruitless crow n and a b a rren scep tre – w ill a fflict h im w ith a n a g o n izin g feelin g o f lo ss a n d rep ro b atio n (M acb eth sh all sleep n o m ore, an d h is eternal jew el is given to the com m on enem y of m an). Terrible dream s and the anxiety of an unfulfilled task torture him - ‘O full of scorpions is m y m ind, d ea r w ife’ (3 . 2 . 3 6 ), h e co n fid es to h is p a rtn er in ev il in ex cru cia tin g p a in . It is th e p o in t o f n o retu rn (‘I a m in b lo o d / S o step p ed in so fa r that should I w ade no m ore, / R eturning w ere as tedious as go o’er., 3. N uno Pinto R ibeiro 4. 136-138), describing a station in his path to nothingness and the surrender to a brave and fatal death, pressed by the feeling of im pending disaster. This anatom y of evil opens the door to the inner trib u la tio n s o f th e ty ra n t, h e lp s th e g ra n tin g o f h is sta tu s a s tra g ic h e ro ; and his lack of pity is tem pered by one of its m ost poetic definitions, right on the eve of his drastic resolution: ‘A n d p ity , lik e a n e w b o rn b a b e Striding the blast, or heaven’s cherubin horsed U p o n th e sig h tle ss c o u rie rs o f th e a ir, S h a ll b lo w th e h o rrid d e e d in e v e ry e y e , T h a t te a rs sh a ll d ra w n th e w in d . … ’(1 .7 .2 1 -2 5 ) It is the protagonist’s language w hat ultim ately reverberates in our m in d s w ith q u a lifie d p o e tic a n d im a g in a tiv e im p a c t. A s in O th e llo , em inence rescues heroes from their indiferent condition and m akes them visible at their peril, in their splendour and m isery, leads them beyond placid hapiness and peaceful resignation of the com m on and average w om an and m an; and certainly M ark A ntony’s rhetorical venture has not m uch to do w ith the ciceronian cursus honorum o f th e R om an patrician, Iago’s cunning m oves and R ichard of G loucester’s skills challenge m ost outrageously m oral intentions or neutral pragm atism assigned to R hetoric by Isocrates or Q uintilian, and the am biguous line of a n tith e sis , th e a rtifa ct o f p a ra le lism and contrived isocolon , the sense of feverish urgency depicted by enum eration , th e m ystery conveyed by dense m etaphor , th e o p a city g iv en b y m e ta le p sis or convoluted speech do not fit in the art of persuasion or the operative location of debate or negotiation. D anger lies in w ords, but also in the charm of the evasive com plex m eaning and the beauty of rythm and 202 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian cadence that, even w hen furtive and am biguous in their lo g o s, fa scin a te readers and audiences w ith that kind of m usic that goes on living as a so lid g lo ry in o u r tim e . 203 C ounterfeiting the deep tragedian cadence that, even w hen furtive and am biguous in their lo g o s, fa scin a te readers and audiences w ith that kind of m usic that goes on living as a so lid g lo ry in o u r tim e . N uno Pinto R ibeiro 1 | A ll re fe re n c e s to th e p la y s a re to th e N o rto n e d itio n (G R E E N B L A T T , S te p h e n , g e n e ra l e d ito r, The N orton Shakespeare , N ew Y ork and London, W . W . N orton & C om pany, 1997). 2 | ‘P a ra d ia sto le : re d e sc rib in g th e v ic e s a s v irtu e s’, in A D A M S O N , S y lv ia , A L E X A N D E R , G a v in , a n d E T T E N H U B E R , K a trin , e d ., R enaissance Figures of Speech , C a m b rid g e , C a m b rid g e U niversity Press, 2007, p. 163. 3 | BU LL, G eorge, translation and introduction, N ic c o lò M a c h ia v e lli: T h e P rin c e , London, Penguin Books, 1981, pp. 100-101. 4 | ‘T h e O th e llo M u sic ’, in The W heel of Fire – Interpretations of Shakespearian Tragedy, London and N ew Y ork, M ethuen, 1949, pp. 97-119.