Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH Co.

KG

"For They Are Actions that a Man Might Play" Role Play, Role Distance, Ego Identity and the
Construction of Shakespearean Tragedy
Author(s): Roland Weidle
Source: AAA: Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2004), pp. 173-197
Published by: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH Co. KG
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43025734
Accessed: 19-02-2016 07:06 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH Co. KG is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AAA:
Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik
und Amerikanistik
Band29 (2004)• Heft2
Gunter
NarrVerlagTübingen

"For They Are Actions that a Man Might Play":

Role Play, Role Distance, Ego Identity and
the Construction of Shakespearean Tragedy1

Roland Weidle

The essence ofShakespeare'stragedieslies intheprotagonists' to

inability
play.The articleexpandsthisargument byshowingthatitis mainly thetragic
heroes'lackofrole-distance (and thustheirineptnessat role-play) whichis
directlyresponsiblefortheirfailuretosucceed.Anditis,aboveall,theaware-
ness ofthatdilemmathatconstitutes thereflexive
"Shakespearean"kindof
tragedy.Two approaches are drawn upon to place the protagonists'
dramaturgical ineffectivenesswithin context:ErikH.
a widersocio-historical
Erikson'sconceptof"ego-identity" and ErvingGoffman's per-
dramaturgical
spectiveon humaninteraction. Inthetragediespriorto Hamletattempts at
identitymanagement are scarce, role-playingand a dramaturgical modeof
interactionare presentedeitheras a threatto order(TitusAndronicus) oras
unsuccessful meansat mastering fate(Romeoand Juliet). The reflection
on
theneed to changefromthemodeofidentification to role-distance
appears
forthefirsttimeinHamlet developedinTroilus
, and itis further and Cressida,
Othello, KingLear; and Macbeth.These tragedieshavebeentermed"great"
because theirtragicheroesnotonlyexperiencerepeatedboutsof identity
crisesand "negative experience" (Goffman) as a resultoftheirunsuccessful
attempts atdeveloping role-distance, butbecause theyarealso awareoftheir
tochangetoa dramaturgical
inability code ofinteraction.

Shakespeare's tragicprotagonistsdo not know how to play. Or, to put it

because Hamlet,Othello,Lear, and Macbethdo notknowhowto
differently,
play,and because theyare aware ofthatinsufficiency, theyare tragicchar-
acters. But how is play to be understoodin thiscontext?A clarification
of

1 Thisarticle
is a longer ofa paperwiththesametitlegivenat the28th
version Annual
ConferenceoftheSocialHistory inLeicester,
Society 3-5 January
2003.

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 RolandWeidle

terminology seems necessary beforeembarkingon a further analysis.2Johan

Huizinga in his seminal studyofthe play element in culturedefines play as
follows:
Summingup theformal ofplaywe might
characteristics call ita freeactivity
standing outside
quiteconsciously life
'ordinary' as being'notserious',butat
the same timeabsorbingthe playerintenselyand utterly.It is an activity
connectedwithno materialinterest, can be gained by it. It
and no profit
proceedswithin itsown properboundariesoftimeand space accordingto
fixedrulesand in an orderly
manner.It promotesthe formation of social
groupingswhichtendtosurround themselveswithsecrecyandtostresstheir
differencefromthe commonworldby disguiseor othermeans. (Huizinga
1998: 13)3

Accordingto thisdefinition playis 'make-believe',notto be foundineveryday

Itis based on a framework
lifeand self-sufficient. of rules,and confinedto a
certainspace and periodoftime.Huizingathusdifferentiates between a play-
worldand the 'real world',and whilehe sees play as a spatiallyand tempo-
rally confined template for culture,4 I will apply Erving Goffman's
"dramaturgical perspective"(Goffman1990: 233) on social interaction.5There
the meaning of play is not only confinedto particular"finiteprovinces of
6
meaning" (Schütz 1962: 231), but pervades every 'province' of human

2 Theliterature on play-andgame-theories is abundant. Foran overview ofthedifferent

approaches anddefinitions cf.Baatz(1993),Garvey (1982),Heidemann (1968),Kolb
(1990),andRöhrs(1981).Foran application ofFreudian playtheory totheanalysis of
tragedy ingeneraland Shakespeare's tragedies inparticular cf.Bates(1999).Müller-
Schwarze (1978)offers a useful collection ofvarious 'classical' works onwhatI callbelow
the'narrow' definition
ofplay.
3 Asomewhat similardefinition is given byGarvey, whostatesfivedefining of'play':
criteria
"1. Playispleasurable, enjoyable. [...]2. Playhasnoextrinsic goals.[...]3. Playissponta-
neousandvoluntary. [...] 4. Playinvolves someactiveengagement on thepartofthe
player.[...]5. Playhascertain systematic relations towhatis notplay" (Garvey 1982:10).
Caillots(1979)criticizes Huizinga's broad definition,statessixdefining criteria(playisfree,
separate, uncertain,unproductive, governed byrules, andmake-believe) andproposes "a
divisioninto four mainrubrics" (12):agón(competition), alea(chance), mimicry (simulation),
andilinx (vertigo).
4 Cf.alsoCaillois (1979),whoarguesina similar manner.
5 Foran overview ofthehistory, concepts, andmainrepresentatives ofthe'dramaturgical
perspective' onsocialinteraction cf.Brissett/Edgley (1975),Dewey(1969),Edgley/Turner
(1975),Hare/Blumberg (1988),Hopper (1981),Hughes(1976),Lahr/Price (1973),Lipp
(1984),McLeod(1984),andMerelman (1969).Brissett (1975)summarizes "nineprincipal
characteristics" (7)forthedramaturgical perspective. Fora similar reading andapplication
ofGoffman's viewtotheanalysis ofliterature cf.Nardo1991: 11.
6 Berger and Luckmann use thesametermindescribing differentrealmsofreality, yet
emphasize thesupreme statusofthereality ofeveryday life:"Compared tothereality of
everyday life,otherrealities appearas finite provinces ofmeaning, enclaveswithin the
paramount realitymarked bycircumscribed meanings and modesofexperience. The
paramount realityenvelops them onallsides,as itwere, andconsciousness alwaysreturns
totheparamount realityas from an excursion" (Berger/Luckmann 1991:39). Berger and

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Tor TheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play" 175

interaction.Social interactionis thus always a formof play, commonlyre-

ferredto as social role play. Italways requiresthe awareness of the differ-
ence between what is representedand the act of representationitself.Con-
sequentlyevery'act' of interaction, every'scene' in everydaylifetakes on a
dramaturgicallayer, and thus requiresdramaturgicalawareness on the part
ofthe 'players'or 'actors' involved.We thereforemustdifferentiate between
twodefinitions ofplay,a narrowand a broad form:Huizinga's non-functional
and clearlydemarcated play on the one hand and the functionaland thus
strategicrole play in any formof social interaction
on the other.7
Goffmanwas influencedby Gregory Bateson, who concludes in his
observationson play behaviour withanimals that playingdepends on the
abilityto interpretsigns as signals to whichone can, but need not respond
to.8Inotherwords,playingdepends on the abilityto realize thatplay is play,
or followingGoffman,to recognize the "frame"(Goffman1986 passim) of a
situation.This 'framingknowledge'9is one of the main preconditionsof the
broader definitionof play. In social interaction,unlikein games as 'finite
provincesofmeaning',theplayersinvolvedare neversure whethertheframe
ofa situationis identicalwitheveryone's 'framing'10 is
of it.Social interaction
a farmoreriskybusiness thangames, where "allthose involvedin itseem to
have a clear appreciationthat it is play that is going on" (Goffman1986:
41 ).11These "vulnerabilitiesofframedexperience"(Goffman1986: 426) put
a great strainon the players,and in orderto 'win'in thisgame of everyday

Luckmann's assessment of'reality'isattimes precarious andverges onthetautological, as

forexample whentheyarguethat"thenatural is theattitude
attitude ofcommon-sense
consciousness precisely becauseitrefers toa world thatiscommon tomany men"(37).Cf.
alsothestatement that the"reality ofeveryday lifeistaken forgranted as reality.Itdoesnot
requireadditional verificationoverandbeyond itssimple presence. Itis simply as
there,
self-evident
andcompelling facticity.I know thatitis real"(37).
7 ForGoffman's differentiationbetween thesetwotypes ofplaycf.footnote 10 below.Müller-
Schwarze (1978)proposes todistinguish between a narrow andbroadapproach toplay.
Thelatterbeing"a broadcategory of'play'behavior, or'ludicbehavior,' touse a more
technical
term - orplaysensulato- thatwould includeallbehavior thatdoesnotserveits
usualbiological end.Itwouldlargely correspond tothenotion 'play'incommon parlance,
andwouldcontain severalsubcategories intowhich specific,analyzed cases ofbehavior
couldfall"(3-4). Problematic withregard to a sociological approach to playis Müller-
Schwarze's denial ofa 'biological end',which roleplayinsocialinteraction certainlyserves.
8 "Now,thisphenomenon, play,couldonly occuriftheparticipant organisms werecapableof
somedegreeofmeta-communication, i.e.,ofexchanging signalswhich wouldcarry the
message'thisis play'" (Bateson1987:179).
9 Iowethisterm toHans-Georg Soeffner's German "Rahmungswissen" (Soeffner 1989:144).
10 InFrame Analysis Goffman classifies a gameas a "make-believe" keying (Goffman 1986:
48).A keying isa "play activity[that]isclosely patterned after something thatalready has
a meaning initsownterms" (40).Itis a transformation ofa stripofreality intoitsplaylike
version(forexample a boxing match isa keying ofa realfight).
11 Sutton-Smith's (1974)concept seemstocombine boththebroader andnarrower definitions
ofplay.He sees themas 'buffered training systems' (passim)inwhich configurationsof
power andconflict arerehearsed.

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 RolandWeidle

or at least to stayinthe game as longas possible, notonly

social interaction,
certainstrategictraitsbutalso identity managementis required.
***

BertoltBrechtonce compared Shakespeare's theatrewiththe experiments

ofGalilei.12InthefollowingI willuse Shakespeare's 'experimental'theatreto
show what happens to the 'players" personal identityin social interaction
once thestrategicrequirementsofself-managementare notmet.Or,to state
the projectfromthe viewpointof a literary scholar: to what extentdoes the
protagonists'lackofdramaturgical awareness account fortheirtragiccharac-
ter?
In the followingI wish to concentrate on the early tragedies Titus
Andronicusand Romeo and Juliet,Troilusand Cressida and the fourso-
called 'GreatTragedies' Hamlet,Othello,KingLear and Macbeth.^3Although
the exact dates ofcompositionformost ofShakespeare's worksare difficult
to ascertain, followingchronologicalorder forthe tragedies in question is
widelyaccepted: TitusAndronicus(1589-90), Romeo and Juliet(1591-97),
Hamlet (1599-1601), Troilusand Cressida (1601-03), Othello (1603-04),
King Lear (1605-06), Macbeth (1606-1 1).14Withinthe limitedspace ofthis
articleitwillonlybe possible to offerselective readings of the plays, and I
hope that the impressionof superficiality will be avoided or at least out-
weighed by the comparativescope of the analysis.
Inthetragediespriorto Hamletthe characters'failureto displaydifferenti-
ated forms of role play does not account for their tragic status. Titus
Andronicusis probablynot onlyShakespeare's earliest,but also his most
conventionaland mostgruesome tragedy.Modelledafterthegenericformof

12 "DieExperimentedes Globetheaters wiediedes Galilei, derdenGlobusinbesonderer

Weisebehandelte,entsprachen derUmbildung desGlobus selber"(Brecht 1963:125).Both
Galilei
andShakespeare werebornin1564.
13 Duetothelimitedspaceandthefactthatthey a kind
constitute of'sub-genre', theRoman
PlaysJulius
Caesar,Antony andCleopatra andCoriolanus willbeleftoutfrom thefollowing
analysis.Because of its chronological and semanticproximity to the Romances ,
Shakespeare'spresumably lasttragedy Timon ofAthensshould bediscussed ina separate
analysis.
AlthoughTroilusandCressida hasbeenrepeatedly viewed as a comedy, I follow
theFirstFolioeditionofShakespeare's works(1623),inwhich theplayis listedas a
tragedy.Cymbeline,which is also listedas a tragedy intheFirst Folio,is todaywidely
acceptedtobelong tothegroup ofRomances (alongwithPericles, TheWinter's Taleand
TheTempest) andtherefore omitted here.Onecouldalsoargueabouttheexclusion ofthe
twoRichard-plays,
Richard Ilañó Richard III,from canon.Yetbotharenotlisted
thetragic
as tragedies
butas history playsintheFirstFolioedition. Itis also morerewarding to
analyzebothRichards'strategic inthecontext
(in-)efficiencies ofthehistory playsandthe
ofthepolitician
evolution king.Cf.Weidle (2002).
14 Cf.forexamplethechronologies intheNorton Shakespeare edition (1997)and the
Shakespare-Handbuch (Schabert 1992).

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "ForTheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play" 177

the Revenge Tragedy,it includes such stock elements as a courtsetting,

revengeconstituting the mainactionofthe play,blood and sex, trickery, and
a patternof success, death and restoration.15 The plotfollowsHarryLevin's
'revenge pattern'where one crime is avenged by another,which in turn
triggersanother chain of retaliatoryacts (Levin 1962: 213-215). In Titus
Andronicustragedyis established throughthe recourse to a well-known
tragicpattern,notthroughthe protagonists'awareness oftheirown strategic
insufficiencies, let alone an explorationof theirown identity. The archaic
natureofthe play is underlinedbythe ritualistic rape and dismemberment of
Lavinia byTamora's sons (theychop offher hands and cut out hertongue),
the almost limitlesssexual power and malignity of the moorAaron,and by
Tamora being forcedto eat her sons, thus recallingthe andient Feast of
ThyestesdescribedbyAeschylusand Seneca. Titus'and Tamora's complete
surrenderto the archaic mode of revenge leaves littlestrategicand opera-
tional leeway. Withthe Thyestian Feast Titus refersto ancient, mythical
configurations of revenge.Tamora, whileusingdisguise and role play in her
visitto murderTitus,onlydoes so in symbolicform:her sons are disguised
as 'Rape' and 'Murder* while she is dressed as 'Revenge'. Only the "chief
architectand plotter"(Tit V.iii.121 )16Aaron displays an attituderecallinga
pragmatic,'modern'sense of strategicinteraction.Arguingthat "whatyou
cannot as you wouldachieve, /You mustperforceaccomplish as you may"
(TitII.¡.107-9) and thattherefore"policyand stratagemmustdo" ( Titll.i.105)
he seems to be aware ofthe operationalscope that role play and strategic
interactionofferhim.Yet Aaron's apparent strategicmobility is undercutby
a similarcharacteristicas that of Titus and Tamora. Whilethey surrender
unconditionally to thearchaic mode of revenge,Aaron is an "incarnatedevil"
{TitV.i.40) with a "fiendlike face" {TitV.i.45) who, itseems, has to surrender
unconditionally to the dictates of evil.Aarontoo, likeTitusand Tamora, is a
captive of his desires and unable to make use ofthe strategicknowledgehe
undoubtedlypossesses. Neither can he employthatknowledgeto extendhis
operationalscope, nor do those rudimentary insightshave any repercussions
forthe buildofthe tragiccharacter.Notyet.
A similarcase can be stated for Romeo and Juliet,where the plot is
structuredaround an archaic motif,thatof the familyfeud. Tragic conflict
arises not fromwithin,froman awareness of strategicinsufficiencies, but
'fromwithout', throughgivenexternalconstellationsand prescribedmodes of

15 Ifollow
Griswold's
(1986)listoffeatures
for
theRevenge Tragedies.Cf.alsoBower's
(1940)
seminal onthissubject,
study whereheputsforwardthenotionofa 'KydianFormula'
using
ThomasKyd'sSpanishTragedy as theprototype
fortheRevengeTragedy. Fora fairly
current
summary ofthediscussioncf.Simkin
(2001: 1-23).
16 Allreferences
to Shakespeare's worksare to theNorton edition,editedbyStephen
Greenblatt
(Shakespeare1997).

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178 RolandWeidíe

behaviour,such as familyties and clashing honour codes.17 Romeo and

Julietare tragicheroes of classic design, who findthemselves in a typical
double-bind situationtorn between their love and theirfilialobligations.
Romeo and Julietis a tragedyof fate, nota tragedyof character.18Romeo
believes that God "haththe steerage of mysail" ( Rom l.v.112), and Juliet
despairs that"heaven should practisestratagems/Upon so softa subject as
myself ( Rom lll.v.209-10). Juliet'slamentillustrates:role play is notyetan
option forthe individualbecause it is still believed that the assigning of
differentroles (and fates) to mankindis inthe hands ofGod.19And ifstrategic
interactionis notyetan optionin masteringone's problems,the awareness
of itsabsence cannot pose a problemforthe protagonists'identity, letalone
constitutea new formoftragedy.Notyet.
***

In Play in a Godless WorldCatherine Bates (1999) argues that "Hamlet

mournsthe passing ofa worldwhichused to knowhow to play"(196). With
'play' Bates is referring to those 'provinces of meaning' in a feudal world
which at the beginningof Hamlet no longer exist. It is a world of formal
combats and "chivalricetiquette"(197), where all the playersinvolvedobey
the rules. Itis the worldoffairplay,representedbyHamletSr and Fortinbras
Sr. Hamlet's problem,according to Bates, is the fact that, although the
"gamesmanshipofformertimeshas been irrevocably disrupted"(1 97) bythe
foulplay of the likesof Claudius, he stillbelieves in a worldinherently rule-
bound. I would liketo take Bates' idea one step further and argue thatthis
new worldof 'foulplay' also obeys certainrules,dramaturgicalones. Itthen
becomes clear thatHamlet's conflictsarise notfroma mourningof a play-
worldpast, butfromthe growingawareness thathis old set ofrules is incom-
patiblewiththe new.20Hamletis thefirstofShakespeare's tragicheroes who

17 "Now, bythestockandhonour ofmykin,/To strike himdead I holditnota sin."(Rom

l.v.55-6)
18 Thequestion whether RomeoandJuliet is "a tragedy ofFateora tragedy ofcharacter"
(Evans1997:13)isbriefly discussed inEvans'edition oftheplay(Evans1997:13-16).
19 TheideaofroleplayinthehandsofGodis putforward bythetheatrum mundiconcept,
which inantiquity
originated andreachedgreatest popularityintheMiddle Agesandthe
Baroque. Thepeculiarimportance ofthetheatrum mundi inHamlet isdiscussedbelow.
20 Bates(1999)actuallydescribes this'newworld' offoulplayinterms ofthedramaturgical
which,
perspective, as statedabove,is mainly characterized between
bya differentiation
theactofpresentationandthepresented itself:
"But,when therulesofthegamearebroken
andwhenappearance andrealityaredisjoined, weenter intothecrazedandpunning world
ofHamlet wheresignifieris divorcedfrom signified,where therulesofsocialandethical
grammar havebeenso thoroughly subverted thatit'snolonger possibletobe understood,
andwhere thecontractual
exchange which oncemadelanguage meaningfulgivesplaceto
a worldinwhich dialogueis,fromtheopening scene,habitually thwartedbypeoplegiving
thewrong answers orspeaking outofturn" (198).

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "ForTheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play" 179

becomes aware of the potentialof play,and at the same timeof his limita-
tionsinmakinguse ofthatpotential.He is thefirst tragicprotagonistinwhom
such a growingawareness of his limitstriggersan identity crisis. Thus the
play inhabits a crucial place in Shakespeare's tragedies and the Western
canon because it is withinthe course of this play that a new concept of
tragedyis exploredforthe firsttime.21
In hisfirstappearance the princerepliesto his mother'sconcernabout his
gloomydisposition:
Seems, madam?Nay,itis. I knownot'seems'.
'Tis notalone myinkycloak,good-mother,
Norcustomary suitsofsolemnblack,
Norwindysuspiration offorcedbreath,
No,northefruitfulriverintheeye,
Northedejectedhaviourofthevisage,
Togetherwithallforms, moods,showsofgrief
Thatcan denoteme truly. These indeed'seem',
Fortheyare actionsthata manmight play;
ButI havethatwithin whichpassethshow-
These butthetrappings and thesuitsofwoe. (Haml.ii.76-86)
On the one hand this passage shows that rightfromthe startHamlet is
endowed witha dramaturgicalperspectiveon social interaction.The lines
read likean inventory of standardizedtheatricalformsof expression: "inky
cloak", "solemn black","forcedbreath","fruitful riverin the eye", "dejected
haviourofthe visage" etc., theyall pointto an understandingof melancholy
as "shows ofgrief'.Shakespeare's Hamlethas a decisive advantage overhis
dramaticpredecessors Titus, Romeo, and Juliet:forthe princesocial role
play is part of everyday life,a constituentfeatureof social interaction.22
Unlikehis dramaticpredecessors he is wellable to differentiatebetweenthe
act of presentationand the presented. But Hamlet is notyeta specimen of
'modern'man witha differentiated, Lockean sense of (personal) identity.He
stillbelieves thathis self is somethingto be 'denoted truly'and something

21 Anentirelydifferent
readingoftherelation between playandHamlet's is provided
identity
byNardo(1991).ShearguesthatHamlet is repeatedly
confronted withdoublebindsitua-
tionsandcontradictorydemands from other characters(hismother,hisuncle,theghost).
He adoptstwostancesofplayto encounter thosedemands: "[...]playthatdefends a
threatenedself,andplaythatintegrates theselfwith a trusted
absolute. Inacts2 through
ofplayhelpsHamlet
4,theduality protecthimself fromClaudius'strapsandhissanity from
thedoublebindsituationsimposed byGertrude andtheghost,which threatentofragment
hissenseofself.Inact5, Hamlet's playgiveshima perspective onthesedilemmas and
renews hisself'(Nardo1991: 33).Fora criticalassessment ofNardo's readingofHamlet's
playinthefinalactcf.below.
22 Hamlet'sacceptance ofroleplayas a constituent feature alsoaccounts
ofsocialinteraction
forthefactthatHamletisusuallyreferred toas thefirst
(modern) individualontheWestern
stage.

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180 RolandWeidle

'withinwhich passeth show'. Hamlet's behaviour is characterized by this

dualism,bythe tensionof acknowledgingroleplay on the one hand and still
believingin a holistic,stable core ofthe self on the other.As a resultofthat
tension Hamlet's selfcontinuallyescapes his grasp.23
"
When Hamlet puts on "an antique disposition ( Ham l.v.173) and plays
the madman, his general demeanour is in factso convincingthat not only
Polonius, his uncle and Gertrudebelieve in "Hamlet'stransformation" ( Ham
ll.ii.5),but we, the audience, are not quite sure anymore whether Hamlet is
just 'putting on a disposition'or whether he is reallyinsane.24In fact Hamlet
seems to be swallowed up by his role,25he triesto 'transform' his self,or,as
Schwanitzargues, to 'floodhis selfwiththe affects'(Schwanitz1977 passim)
of a madman. Itis no coincidence thatthe arrivalof the Players symbolizes
the failureof Hamlet's technique of 'flooding'the self, i.e. of inducingin
himselfenforced emotional states throughidentification, in his pursuitof
revenge. Afterthe firstPlayer's convincingrendition of PyrrhuskillingPriam
inthe Trojan War, Hamletdoes notunderstandwhyan actor's presentation
of a fictitious charactershould be more convincing(and effective)than his
own role play.
O, whata rogueand peasantslave am I!
Is itnotmonstrous thatthisplayerhere,
Butina fiction,ina dreamofpassion,
Couldforcehissoul so to hiswholeconceit
Thatfromherworking all hisvisagewanned,
Tears inhiseyes,distraction in'saspect,
A brokenvoice,and hiswholefunction suiting
Withformsto hisconceit?Andall fornothing.
ForHecuba!(Hamll.ii.527-35)
Hamletdoes not understand,because in his opinionhe is more 'entitled'to
passions thanthe firstPlayer:
What'sHecubato him,orhe to Hecuba,
Thathe shouldweep forher?(Ham ll.ii.536-
7)
He triesto imaginewhat the performanceof the Player would be like,ifhe
had Hamlet's motive:

23 Polonius' "tothine
advicetoLaertes ownselfbetrue"(HamI.iii.78)
wouldhavebeenloston
Hamlet. Italso underscoresLaertes'function
as a foilto Hamlet.
AlthoughKatharine
Eisaman MausquestionstheNewHistoricists'
generaldenialofinteriority
inRenaissance
subjectsandaccedesto Hamlet a "senseofinwardness" (EisamanMaus1995:2),she
sees hissubjectivity
constituted
within "dialectic
a theatrical ofvision
andconcealment"
(29).
24 Cf.alsoGertrude abouther"too-much
talking changèd son"(Hamll.ii.36).
25 Cf.forexample thenunneryscene.

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "ForTheyAreActions
thata ManMight " 181
Play

Whatwouldhe do
Had he themotiveand thecue forpassion
ThatI have? He woulddrownthestage withtears,
Andcleave thegeneralear withhorrid speech,
Makemadtheguilty and appalthefree,
Confound theignorant,
and amaze indeed
The veryfacultyofeyes and ears. (Ham II.ii.537-43)
Yet Hamleterrs here. The sortof acting he describes ("drowningthe stage
withtears","cleavingthe general ear withhorridspeech" and "amazing the
facultyof eyes and ears") recalls the exaggerated acting style of the boy
companies whichhe himselfonlyshortlyafterwardscondemns inhisfamous
advice to the Players:26
Nordo notsaw theairtoomuchwithyourhand,thus,
forintheverytorrent,
butuse all gently; tempest,and,as I may
say,thewhirlwind ofpassion,youmustacquireand beget
a temperance thatmaygiveitsmoothness.O, itoffends me to
thesoulto heara robustiousperiwig-pated fellowteara pas-
siontotatters,toveryrags,tosplittheears ofthegroundlings,
whoforthemostpartare capable ofnothing butinexplicable
dumbshows and noise.(Hamlll.ii.4-11)
Hamlet does not heed his own advice.27 What the firstPlayer's speech
embodies, but Hamletfails to grasp, is the factthateffectiverole play can
onlybe achieved throughGoffman'sconcept of roledistance. Peter Berger
(1963) states thatroledistance is present"wherea roleis playeddeliberately
withoutinneridentification,in otherwords,where the actor has established
an innerdistance between his consciousness and his role-playing" (14).28
Goffman'sconcept of roledistance draws on ErikErikson'sego psychology
and his concept ofego identity.Writing about the psychologicalgrowthofthe
individualErikson(1994) stresses the "limitedusefulnessofthe mechanisms
ofidentificatioď(120) inthe formation of ego identity.
His basic assumption

26 Fora discussion
oftheElizabethan ofacting
styles cf.Gurr (1995:95-103).
27 Cf.Edwards inhiseditionoftheplay:"Itis notable that[...]totheplayers [...]Hamletis
muchconcerned aboutthetemperance, self-controlandmoderation which is so much
wantinginhisownbehaviour." (Edwards 1988:152)
28 Goffman definesroledistance as a wedgebetween theindividualandhisrole,between
doingandbeing.This'effectively'
expressed pointed separateness between theindividual
andhisputativeroleI shallcallroledistance.Ashort-hand is involved
here:theindividual
isactually
denyingnottherolebutthevirtual selfthatisimplied intheroleforallaccepting
performers"(Goffman 1972:95). InthepastGoffman's concepthas beenexposedto
repeated for
criticism, example byDreitzel(1968).Fora detailed discussion
oftheterm and
thedebatecf.Chriss(1999:78etsqq.),Krappman (1978),Sauterde Maihold (1995),and
Willems(1997:198etsqq.).

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182 RolandWeidle

is thatthe growthof a "healthypersonality"29 depends on the formation of a

basic "ego identity'whichdenotes "certaincomprehensivegains whichthe
individual,at the end of adolescence, musthave derivedfromall of his pre-
adult experience in order to be ready forthe tasks of adulthood"(108).30
Whereas childrenin theirdevelopmentidentify withdifferentrole models at
various stages (parents, teachers, friends),ego identityand thus identity
formationbegins "where the usefulness of multipleidentification ends. It
arises fromthe selective repudiationand mutualassimilationof childhood
identifications,and theirabsorption in a new configuration" (122).31 The
modern individual'stransitionfromchildhoodto adulthoodis thus markedby
a transitionfromidentification to role play.
The conclusion of Hamlet's 'Hecuba' soliloquy shows that he has not
learnedthe lesson taughtbythefirstPlayer's performance.Instead ofrealiz-
ing that role distance is necessary, the 'temperance' in a performance,he
appeals to the selfsame "whirlwind ofpassion" he condemns in his advice to
the Players. He triesto floodhis ego withthe passions ofthe avenger:
Bloody,bawdyvillain!
Remorseless,treacherous, lecherous,kindlessvillain!
O, vengeance!( Hamll.ii.557-
9)
Saturated withaffectsHamlet realizes thatfloodingdoes not make himan
avenger ("Why,what an ass am I?", Ham ll.ii.560).32Throughoutthe play
Hamlet has to deal withthe problemof accumulated emotions as a result
of his attemptsat flooding.Hamlet is like a coiled spring,always winding
himselfup to the utmostpoint,yet unable to release the resultingtensions.
The Mousetrapis one ofthese variousattemptsat pressure relief,projecting
the murderof Claudius onto the stage.33 As the play progresses Hamlet

29 ThesecondessayinErikson (1994)isentitled"Growth andCrisesoftheHealthy Personal-

Erikson's
ity." use of'healthy'
is problematic as itinsinuatesa prescriptiveratherthan
descriptivemodelofanalysis.
30 Itshouldbe notedherethatErikson does notimply thattheformation ofa 'healthy'ego
identity"endswith adolescence:itis a lifelongdevelopment largelyunconscious tothe
individualandtohissociety"(Erikson 1994:122).
31 Erikson's conceptofegoidentityhascausedmuch debate.Foranoverview andexplana-
tionscf.Dreitzel (1968),Krappman (1978:70 et sqq.),andWillems (1997:176-180).
Dreitzel (1968:252-266)offers a goodGerman summary ofErikson's keyterms (ego
identity, diffusion,
identity psychosocial moratorium, negative Foran excellent
identity).
English discussioncf.Wallerstein
(1998).
32 Hamlet repeatsthishabitual
sequencewhenhewatches Fortinbras'armies march by.He
compares Fortinbras'
smallmotive ("[e]venforaneggshell",HamIV.iv.9.43) withhisown
cause,enviestheNorwegian's resoluteness andfinally attempts to induceinhimself
patterns ofrevenge again:"O,from thistimeforth /Mythoughts be bloody orbe nothing
worth!"(HamIV.iv.9.55-6)
33 TheMousetrap shows"Lucianus,nephew totheKing" (Hamlll.ii.223) hisuncle,
killing not,
as is oftenoverlooked,a kingkilledbyhisbrother. Inherreading ofthesoliloquyBates
(1999)stressesthemodelcharacter ofthePlayer's performance forHamlet's Mousetrap:

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "ForTheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play" 183

becomes increasingly aware ofthefutility

ofhisstrategy:on theone hand the
repeated attempts at with
identification role models (such as Fortinbras,
Laertes, and the firstPlayer)34 and floodingthe self withaffects,35
on the
otherthe paralyzingstagnationof his plan of revenge:
Thusconsciencedoes makecowardsofus all,
Andthusthenativehue ofresolution
I sickliedo'erwiththepale cast ofthought,
Andenterprises ofgreatpithand moment
Withthisregardtheircurrents turnawry,
Andlose thenameofaction.(Hamlll.i.85-90)
Withthekilling ofPoloniusthatstagnationis momentarily cancelled. Momen-
tarily,because a) he killsthe wrongperson ("I tookthee forthybetter",Ham
lll.iv.31)and b) Hamlet allows himselfto be shipped away to England. Yet
Hamlet's acquiescence to his uncle's decree is more thanjust blindobedi-
ence. Notonlydoes Hamletshow temperanceand affectcontrolby accept-
ing banishment,36 duringthe journeyto and fromEngland he also reveals
signs of a frommultipleidentification
transition to role distance, or, in other
words, fromchildhoodto adulthood. Supportiveto this argumentare his
dealings withthe pirates,the outwitting of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern,
and the collected and composed style of his writtenand oral reportsto
Horatioabout these incidents.37 Itis interesting
thatHamletuses the phrase
"we put on a compelled valour"( Ham IV.vi.15) in his account of the pirate
episode. This distanced and more methodologicalapproach to acting,role
play, contrastswithhis earlierself-induced'floodings'of patternsof behav-
iour.
Erikson proposes a second latency period in human development.
Whereas the firstis of psychoanalyticalorigin,precedes pubertyand is
referredto as the psychosexual moratorium, the second periodof delay is
experienced in adolescence and has to be seen in a psychosocial context.
This periodcan be viewed

"Asa direct ofwitnessing

result thePlayer'semotional engagement with
theHecubastory,
Hamlet resolves toputClaudius tothetest,andtouse hisuncle'semotional responseto
theplayas a wayofsettling thematter ofhisguiltonceandforall:'theplay'sthething/
Wherein I'llcatchtheconscience oftheking'."(Bates1999:201) Batespersuasivelypoints
outtheflaw inHamlet'sreasoning. Aconvincing performance,orreaction,
doesnotneces-
mean"that
sarily thestory istrue"(201). Sucha readingcorroborates
theviewthatHamlet
hasnotreally understoodoneofthemainimplications ofroleplayandimpressionmanage-
ment,'lheability tomoveas powerfully
offiction as fact"
(201).
34 Thisreading ofHamlet's foilsas rolemodelsowesmuchto Schwanitz (1977;1978).
Schwanitz showshowHamlet repeatedly tries
toimitaterolemodels(Fortinbras,
Laertes,
first
Player) byritually
inducingtheproper affects.
35 "NowcouldI drink hotblood" "Letmebecruel"
(Hamlll.ii.360); (Hamlll.ii.365).
36 "Ham:ForEngland? /KingClaudius:Ay,Hamlet. /Ham:Good"(HamIV.iii.46- 48).
37 HamIV.vi.1 1-27;HamV.ii.1-56.

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184 RolandWeidle

[...] as a psychosocialmoratorium duringwhichthe individual

through free
roleexperimentation mayfinda nicheinsome sectionofhissociety,a niche
whichis firmly madeforhim.Infinding
definedand yetseems to be uniquely
itthe youngadultgains an assured sense of innercontinuity and social
sameness whichwillbridgewhathe was as a childand whathe is aboutto
become, and willreconcilehis conceptionofhimselfand his community's
recognition ofhim.(Erikson1994: 120)
Is Hamlet's voyage to England then also a voyage to an awareness of his
'innercontinuity'? Can his "compelledvalour"justifiablybe called roleexperi-
mentation,and do the incidentsafterhis returnbespeak a maturedindividual
versed in'adult' roleplay? Yes and no. Yes, because afterhis returnHamlet
is indeed able to reflectupon, and (as Schwanitzhas persuasivelyargued)38
to parodyhisformermode ofidentifying withrolemodels. When he leaps into
Ophelia's grave, he does so knowing thathe is imitating
Laertes:
'Swounds,showme whatthou'lt do.
Wootweep,wootfight, wootfast,woottearthyself,
Wootdrink up eisel,eat a crocodile?
I'lldo't.Dostthoucome heretowhine,
To outfaceme withleapinginhergrave?
Be buriedquickwithher,and so willI. (HamV.i.259-264)
Identificationhas momentarily given way to role distance.39Yet in orderto
attainhis revenge Hamlet revertsto a mode of interactionthatneithercom-
plies withthe demands of 'modern'social interaction, norwithhis previous
mode ofgeneratinginhimselfcopied affectsthrough(en)forcedidentification.
Whereas boththese modes (roleplayand identification) aim to influencethe
course of events, Hamlet in the end opts fora thirdand strikingly ancient
alternative:the notionofthe theatrum mundi, withitssubordinationofindivid-
ual willto fate. Role play loses its autonomous touch, the "directivedomi-
nance" (Goffman1990: 105) shiftsfromthe individualback to God:
There'sa specialprovi-
dence inthefallofa sparrow.Ifitbe now,'tisnotto come. If'
itbe notto come,itwillbe now.Ifitbe notnow,yetitwill
come.The readinessis all.Since no manhas aughtofwhathe
leaves,whatis'tto leave betimes?(HamV.ii.157-61)

38 Cf.Schwanitz (1977:132-3;1978:121).
39 Cf.Nardo:"[...]Hamlet,oncetheactors' so disdains
actor, Laertes' rendition
histrionic of
thegrief-stricken
brotherthatheparodies theextravagant
mourning. Inthefaceofdeath,
hehasdiscovered - playing
ofhispastplaying
thefutility withwords, playing and
thefool,
the
playing avenger" (Nardo 1991:30).AlthoughI agreewithNardothatafterhisreturn
Hamletis able to parodyLaertes'excessivemourning, I believethat,contrary
to her
assessment ofHamlet's thismomentary
disdainoftheatricality, roledistanceenables
Hamlettodiscover, atleastmomentarily,strategic as a consequence
mobility ofplay.

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "ForTheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play" 185

In the end Hamletfailsbecause he realizes thatidentification is notan ade-

quate means to achieve his ends, and thathe has not yetdeveloped suffi-
cientroledistance,whichwouldenable himto absorb his previousidentifica-
tions intoa new configuration of himself.Therein lies the tragicimpactof
Hamlet.As a consequence, Hamlet,the prince,revertsto thearchaic,fatalis-
tic concept of the theatrummundi,and Hamlet,the tragedyof character,is
'forced'to recede intoa tragedyoffate.40
**•*

Troilusand Cressida is unique among the maturertragedies because ofthe

dividedintotwo protagonists,Troilusand
factthatthe tragicself is virtually
Cressida. The linethatseparates the new fromthe old concept of tragedy
does not, as in Hamlet, only run throughone individual,in Troilusand
Cressida itrunsbetweenthetwolovers,therebyprojectingthetragicconflict
onto the external,physicalworldofthe stage, a factwhichalso accounts for
muchofthe actionofthe play.Whereas Cressida stands forthe modernrole
playerwell versed in the rules of strategicinteractionand endowed witha
differentiatedperceptionof her own identity, the "trueknight"( Tro IV.vi.98)
T roilusstumblesfromdisappointment to disappointment ina dramaturgically
saturatedworldof policyand deception.41Troilus'main problemis his holis-

40 ForSchwanitz (1978) Hamlet'srecourseto 'thatolderside of thetheatre analogy'

("Rückwendung zu jenerälteren SeitederTheateranalogie" [131])is partofHamlet's
regained faithinthe'senseofthewhole'("Sinn desGanzen" [131]).Contrary tomyargu-
ment Schwanitz believes thatHamlet intheenddoesattainroledistance becauseonly
through hisfaith indenSinndes Ganzenis Hamlet abletowrite hisownroleandthusto
compete with Godas author. A somewhat similar reading is provided byNardo:"Upon
returning from hisfatefulsea voyage, he [Hamlet] nolonger baseshisselfonconfusing,
parental demands, butontheabsolute authorityofa superior Father whoseprovidence, he
trusts, willinsure - nomatter
justice whathisindividual fatewillbe. Having accepted his
roleinGod'sdrama, hedieswith selfintact, hissalvation ordamnation heleavestohigher
powers. Despitepotentially devastating contradictions,hehaslearned through playtolive
anddieinambiguity." (Nardo1991: 33)
41 Asthefollowing analysis willconcentrate onTroilus as a tragiccharacter, a fewexamples
ofthemostimportant ofCressida's dramaturgical strategiesshallbegiven here.Cressida's
main advantage overTroilus restsinherdifferentiation between andsignified.
signifier She
masters affect control (cf.e.g.TroI.ii.273-4),thelackofwhich shecondemns inothers (Tro
V.ii. 101-2),andemploys various rolesinherplaywith Troilus andDiomedes. Themost
important ofthesebeingthe'hard-to-get' roleon whichshe consciously reflects( Tro
I.ii.264-73,TroIII.ii.106-22).Fora detailed discussion ofCressida's strategies as partof
a network of'mimetic desire'intheplaycf.theexcellent study byGirard (1991).However,
itisimportant tostressthefactthatCressidaisa tragic character, too.While affectdriven
Troilus adherestoa holistic viewoftheselfwith only occasional into
insight thelawsofthe
modern dramaturgical world, Cressidameetswith a similartension. Whilebeingdeeply
embedded inthestrategic code ofinteraction, she also exhibits traitsandpatterns of
interaction from theother, bygone world. Thus,inherconfrontation withTroilus sheexperi-
encesa splitofidentity between "a kind ofselfresides with you"and"anunkind self,that
itself willleave/To beanother's fool" (Trolll.ii.
135-7).

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186 RolandWeidle

view of the self. It is Cressida who proves to be the

tic, undifferentiated
the
catalyst, point of throughwhichTroilus'understandingof identity
friction,
is tested. Her double play withDiomedes and Troilus runscontraryto the
tatter'sperceptionof his beloved:
This,she? No,thisis Diomed'sCressida.
Ifbeautyhavea soul,thisis notshe.
Ifsouls guidevows,ifvowsbe sanctimonies,
Ifsanctimony be thegods' delight,
Iftherebe ruleinunity itself,
Thisis notshe. O madnessofdiscourse,
Thatcause sets up withand againstthyself!
Bifold wherereasoncan revolt
authority,
Without and loss assume all reason
perdition,
Without Thisis and is notCressid.(TroV.ii.137-46)
revolt!
For Troilusthe displayof different role behaviours and habitualpatternsis
synonymouswith'being' different persons at the same time,and therefore
impossible. Identityis synonymous with an indivisiblesoul, a "thing
inseparate"( TroV.ii.148). Tryingto dividethe indivisibleis likethinkingthe
unthinkable,a "madness of discourse". The concept of role distance is as
alien to Troilusas itis to Hamlet.
Yet thefissureand reconfiguration ofthe selfis notonlyexemplifiedinthe
juxtaposition of the two lovers. As the play progresses Troilus becomes
increasingly aware of the changing mode of Beingexposed tothe
interaction.
disappointmentsresulting from repeated "clearing the frame" situations
(Goffman 1986: 338 et sqq.),42T roilusattainsa growingunderstandingofhis
strategic insufficiencies. To Cressida's question whetherhe will be true
Troilusresponds:
Alas,itis myvice,myfault.
Whilesothersfishwithcraft forgreatopinion,
I withgreattruthcatchmeresimplicity;
Whilst some withcunninggildtheircoppercrowns,
Withtruth and plainnessI do wearminebare.(TroIV.v.102-6)
By denouncingHector'scode of"fairplay"as "[fjool'splay"( TroV.iii.43-44)
hisfrustration
T roiluseventuallytransforms and disillusionment
withCressida

42 Goffmandefinesa clearframe as follows: "When theindividualiscontainedbyothersorby

hisconsequent
himself, misalignment tothefactsislikelytolastlonger thaninthecase of
simplemisframings,sometimes a lifetime. Buthere,too,a 'seeingthrough'mayoccurand
perhapseventually tooccur.Inallthesecases,onecansaythattheindividual's
is likely
totheframe
relation is 'cleared'[...]Bytheterm 'clearframe'I shallrefer
tothearrange-
ment whichoccurswhenallparticipants intheactivity totheframe
havea clearrelation [...]
To saythata frameisclearis notonly tosaythateachparticipant hasa workablycorrect
viewofwhatis goingon,butalso,usually, a tolerablycorrectviewoftheothers' views,
whichincludestheirviewofhisview." (Goffman 1986:338)

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "For thata ManMight
TheyAreActions Play" 187

intoa moredistanced stance of ironyand sarcasm. Yet inthe end, although

gainingdramaturgical awareness, Troilus,likeHamlet,failsto accommodate
a more 'modern'version of the self. Like Hamlet,Troilusbegins to realize
(thoughto a lesser degree) the strategicpotentialof role play,yet lacks the
essential prerequisiteto practiceit:roledistance.43And likeHamlethe even-
tually escapes the conflictby revertingto an archaic scheme; not to a
theatrummundiconception of the world,but to the retaliatory mode of re-
venge, which can be addressed on feudal
strictly grounds, the battlefield:
He[Hector]'sdead, and at themurderer'shorse'stail
Inbeastlysortdraggedthrough theshameful field.
Frownon,youheavens;effect yourrage withspeed;
'Sit,gods,uponyourthrones, and smiteat Troy.
[...]
Andthougreat-sized coward[Achilles],
No space ofearthshallsunderourtwohates.
I'llhaunttheelikea wickedconsciencestill,
Thatmouldeth goblinsswiftas frenzy's
thoughts.
Strikea freemarch!To Troywithcomfort go:
Hope ofrevengeshallhideourinward woe. (TroV.xi.4-7,26-31)
***

Shakespeare's protagonistsare tragicbecause theyare ineptplayers.The

protagonists'tragiccourses depend on the factthattheyare positionedon
the borderlinebetween one code of interactionand another.44Janus-faced
theyperceivethe past and thefuturecodes ofinteraction simultaneously.As
a resultof this double vision,theyfinditdifficult to respond to the current
dramaturgicalchallenges, and consequentlyseek refugeinarchaic formsof
interaction.The same can be said forthethree'greattragedies'afterHamlet
Othello,King Lear, and Macbeth. All three protagonistssufferfromtheir
intermediate positionbetween an ethicaland a dramaturgical code ofinterac-
tion,yetinall threetragediesslightlydifferentformsoftragicexpressionand
constitutionare to be found.
Allof the protagonistslack one of the main ingredientsof effectiverole
play:affectcontrol.Othellois "rashas fire"( OthV.ii.143) and because ofhis
to controlhis passions findsitdifficult
inability to dissemble.45Whileantago-

43 Troilus' with
difficulties affectand"maintenance ofexpressivecontrol"
(Goffman 1990:59)
hisineptness
illustrate
vividly atroleplay.Cf.forexample hisproblemstobury sighin
"this
wrinkleofa smile"(TroI.i.36). WhereasforCressidaexpressive control
represents a
welcome ofmanipulation,
instrument forTroilus itisa hardship
toendure.
44 NeillsaysaboutOthello that"heis caught at thejunctionoftwohistorically
conditioned
modesofsubjectivity"
(Neill1997:156).
45 "Ohardness todissemble!" lago,as so often
(Othlll.iv.32) intheplay,
servesas anaptfoil
toOthello.Whilethelatter
displaysa totallackofaffect onitsimpor-
lagolectures
control,

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 RolandWeidle

nists like lago, Edmund, and Macduff(and up to a certain point Lady

Macbeth) masterthe techniques of strategicinteraction and dissimulation,46
Othellodisplays his dramaturgicalnaivetyand carelessness by addressing
lago as "honest,honest lago" (Oth V.ii.161 ).47Lear's behaviourat the open-
ing ofthe play is presented in the same manneras "rash [, ...] unruly[, ...]
infirmand choleric"(Lr l.i.293-6), and Macbeth, too, "cannot buckle his
distemperedcause/ Withinthe beltof rule"(Mac V.ii.15-6). Inthisrespectit
is interesting to notethatbothOthelloand Macbethare clearlymarkedoutas
soldiers.Othellodefineshimselfalmostexclusivelythroughtheuse ofmartial
imagery,48 he wins Desdemona's heartby relatinghis victorieson the battle-
field(Oth I.iii.127 et sqq.), and he is described as a "fullsoldier"(Oth ll.i.37).
Before his firststage appearance Macbeth's reputationas "Bellona's bride-
groom"(Mac l.iii.54)is already firmly established:
[Captain] ForbraveMacbeth wellhe deservesthatname!-
-
Disdaining fortune,withhisbrandished steel
Whichsmokedwithbloodyexecution,
Likevalour'sminion
Carvedouthispassage tillhe facedtheslave,
Whichne'ershookhandsnorbade farewell to him
Tillhe unseamedhimfrom thenavetoth'chops,
Andfixedhishead uponourbattlements.
Duncan O valiantcousin,worthy gentleman! (Mac l.ii.16-24)49

tance:'"Tisinourselves thatwearethusorthus./Ourbodiesareourgardens, tothewhich

ourwillsaregarden- /ers[...] Ifthebeamofourliveshadnotonescaleof/reasontopeise
another ofsensuality, thebloodandbaseness/ofournatures would conduct ustomost
preposterous conclu-/sions.Butwehavereasontocoolourraging motions, ourcar-/nal
stings,ourunbitted lusts."(Othl.iii.316-26)
46 lago'sdramaturgical skillsaresecondonlyto Richard's strategic qualitiesinRichard III.
Apart from such'basic'skillsas lying andrumour spreading, heemploys more'complex'
techniques suchas imputing to Desdemona,
fabrications Emilia, andalso Cassio(Oth
ll.i.229-40),thedenialofdramaturgical awareness 303;Othlll.iii.378-85),
(Othll.iii.249,
andtheexertion ofdramatic anddirectivedominance.
47 Greenblatt attestslagoa modeof"improvisation , bywhichI meantheability bothto
capitalizeon theunforeseen andtotransform givenmaterials intoone'sownscenario"
(Greenblatt 1984:227).ForGreenblatt improvisationwasa central Renaissance modeof
behaviour which depended "firstupontheability
andwillingness toplaya role,totransform
oneself,ifonlyfora brief period andwithmental reservations, intoanother. Thisnecessi-
tatestheacceptance ofdisguise, a divorce
toeffect
theability [...]between thetongue and
theheart.Suchrole-playing inturn depends uponthetransformation ofanother's into
reality
a manipulate fiction"
(228).
48 "Forsincethesearmsofminehadsevenyears'pith /Tillnowsomeninemoonswasted,
they haveused/Their dearestaction inthetented /Andlittle
field, ofthisgreatworld can
Ispeak/Morethanpertains tofeatsofbroilsandbattle."
(Othl.iii.83-7) Cf.alsoOthl.iii.1
27
etsqq.andOthlll.iii.350 etsqq.
49 Cf.alsoMacl.iii.35-41 .

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "For "
TheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play 189

While Othello's and Macbeth's lack of affectcontrolis due to the factthat

theyidentify withtheir"occupation"(Oth lll.iii.362)as soldiers, Lear's "infir-
mity"(Lr l.i.291) and rashness has to be seen in a slightlydifferentcontext.
Lear is not a soldier but a feudal king.50Feudal kingsare kings by divine
right,whose unquestionableauthorityis inextricably linkedto theirperson
and title.When Lear loses his temperinthefirstscene, he does so because
Cordelia and Kent's refusalto obey his rules are an offenceagainst himas
father,as kingand as the state. Such a trebleattackon his 'self is too much
to bear. Lear explodes, therebylosing control.The inappropriatenessand
danger ofsuch a loss ofaffectcontrolina ruleris remarkedupon byGoneril:
[Goneril]Prayyou,let'shittogether: ifourfather carry
withsuchdispositions
authority as he bears,thislastsurrender
ofhiswillbutoffend
us.
[...]
We mustdo something, and i' theheat.(LrI.i.301-5)51
Lear's identification
withfeudal kingshipis based on the assumption that
person, power and are one and the same thingby divineright.Itis one
title
ofthe main paradoxes ofthe playthatitis Lear himselfwho demolishes his
feudal identity
byseparatingpowerfromtitle:
I do investyou[Regan,Goneril, withmypower,
and theirhusbands]jointly
Pre-eminence, and allthelargeeffects
Thattroopwithmajesty.Ourself, bymonthly course,
Withreservationofan hundred knights,
Byyoutobe sustained,shallourabode
Makewithyoubydue turns.Onlywe stillretain
The name,and alltheadditions to a king;
The sway,revenue,executionoftherest,
Belovedsons,be yours;(Lrl.i.130-8)
As modern as such an understandingof politicalrule may seem, Lear's
separation of powerfromtitledoes not indicatethathe is aware of a new,
political,and desanctifiednotionof kingship.52 inseparating
On the contrary,

50 Schwanitz (1977)differentiates
between three
types inShakespearean
ofaristocrats drama:
theitalianizedandaffected'oldaristocracy'
oftheCounter-Renaissance,the'newaristoc-
with
racy' Christian humanistideals(modelledafter
Castiglione's andthe'old
Cortegiano),
feudalaristocracyofthenorth',which bya lackofaffect
ischaracterized churlish-
control,
ness,anda highly sensitive
honour code.AccordingtoSchwanitz, characterssuchas
Hotspur in 1 Henry Lear,butalsoAjaxinTroilus
IV,Othello, andCressidarepresentthe
latter
type(cf.Schwanitz 1977:113-39).
51 Learis neither abletocontrolhisreactionafter andKent's
Cordelia norisheable
refusal,
tosee through ReganandGoneril's Boththelackofaffect
flattery. controlanda missing
dramaturgical awareness underlinehisstrategic as a roleplayer.
inefficiencies
52 Thereis extensive on thecompeting
literature conceptsofkingship inShakespeare's
historyplaysandthereplacement ofthefeudalkingbythepoliticalruler.The seriesof

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 RolandWeidle

powerfromtitleand yet 'retainingthe name, and all the additionsto a king'

Lear holds on to the 'wrong'halfof feudal kingship.Titlewithoutpower is
nothing,and thatis exactlywhatLear experiences in the play: a slippage of
identity, "I am a fool,thouartnothing"
a dissolutionof his selfinto'nothing'.53
(Lr l.iv.169) the Fool says to Lear, and a few lines laterthe old man con-
cludes:
Dothanyhereknowme? Thisis notLear.
DothLearwalkthus?speak thus?Whereare hiseyes?
Eitherhisnotionweakens,hisdiscernings
Arelethargied- Ha! waking?'Tis notso.
Whois itthatcan tellme whoI am? (LrI.iv.201-5)
The Fool answers: "Lear's shadow" (Lr l.iv.206). Lear is onlya shadow, a
two-dimensionalfoilof his formerfeudal self.54Itseems as ifLear has not
but also a reliable access to reality.Goffmandefines
only lost his identity
such a disorderedrelationshipbetweenan individualand hissurroundings as
"negativeexperience":
Whateverdistanceand reservehe [the individual] had in regardto prior
eventshe loses,at leasttemporarily,alongwithsome ofwhatever conscious
controlhe had over whatwas occurring. He is thrustimmediately intohis
predicament without theusualdefenses.Expecting totakeup a position ina
well-framedrealm,he findsthatno particular
frameis immediately applicable,
or theframethathe thought was applicableno longerseems to be, or he
cannotbindhimself within
theframethatdoes apparently apply.He loses
commandovertheformulation ofviableresponse.He flounders. Experience
- themeldofwhatthecurrent scene bringsto himand whathe bringsto it-
meantto settleintoa formeven whileitis beginning, findsno formand is
thereforenoexperience.Realityanomically flutters.
He has a 'negativeexperi-
ence' - negativeinthesense thatittakesitscharacterfrom whatitis not,and
what it is not is an organizedand organizationally affirmed response.
(Goffman 1986:378-9)

playsthatbeginswith HenryWandendswith Henry Vreplaces theteleological,

providen-
tialnarrative
ofTudor propaganda witha self-referential
cyclethatendsbyinterrogatingthe
entireprojectofhistoricalmythmaking."(Rackin 1991:60-61)Cf.alsoHolderness (1992),
Kastan(1986),Manheim (1973),andWeimann (1987).InWeidle(2002)I haveshown the
repercussions ofthatreplacement forthemodification ofinteraction
inthehistoryplays.
53 Theword'nothing' appears34 times intheplay.
54 Inthisrespect tonotethatEdgar'slossofidentity
itis interesting contrastswithLear's
identity
slippage. While Lear'scrisis
resultsfromhissurrender ofpower, Edgardeliberately
createshimself (andhisfather Gloucester!)anewby"shifting] /Intoa madman's rags
[...andassuming] a semblance /Thatvery dogsdisdained" (LrV.iii.1
85-7).Aninteresting,
inverselysymmetrical isthereby
structure achieved: Leardeliberatelygivesuppower and
as a result
is forced toundergo a painful
deconstruction andannihilationofhisself.Edgar
ontheother handis forced togiveuphispower, i.e.toleavethecourt, yethe deliberately
reshapes hisownidentity inordertoremain inthecountry andto'cure'hisfather.

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "ForTheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play" 191

Whilemostofthetragedyin KingLear is accounted forbyrepeated boutsof

negativeexperience and the gradualdisintegration Othello
ofLear's identity,
suffersa late and sudden slippage ofidentity.
AfterhavingkilledDesdemona
and being toldthe truthabout her innocence, the values whichhad been of
utmostimportanceto the soldierOthellolose meaning:
I am notvalianteither,
Buteverypunywhipster getsmysword.
Butwhyshouldhonouroutlivehonesty?
Letitgo all.(OthV.ii.250-3)
Othello not onlyparts withfeudal values, but also fromhis formerself.To
Lodovico's question "Where is this rash and most unfortunate man?" ( Oth
V.ii.289) Othello answers 'That's he that was Othello. Here I am." ( Oth
V.ii.290). In thefinalscene Othellorealizes thathonourhas subverteditself.
"What shall be said to thee?" (Oth V.ii.299), Lodovico asks. And Othello
replies:
Why,anything;
Anhonourable murderer,ifyouwill,
FornaughtI didinhate,butall inhonour.(OthV.ii.299-301)
By'unjustifiably' Desdemona Othellodestroyshis notionofhonourand
killing
thushis sense ofself.ParadoxicallyforOthellosuch a violationofhis identity
can onlybe met withinthe same ethical matrix:"honour[and ...] honesty"
(Oth V.ii.252) demand that the annihilationof Othello's honour must be
answered withthe annihilationof his own identity.55 The mode of identifica-
tion does not leave the strategicleeway supplied by role distance and a
dramaturgicalperspectiveon social interaction.
Lear experiences a gradual and highlyreflexivedisintegration oftheself,
settingin at the verybeginning of the play, while Othello's crisis is
identity
exposed to him suddenly at the end of the play and counteracted witha

55 Greenblatt explains Othello's

lossofselfwith hissubmission to"narrative self-fashioning"
(Greenblatt 1984:244)demanded byChristiansociety. dependsupona con-
Hisidentity
stantperformance ofhis'story'
according tothenorms ofan alien,i.e.Christian,
culture,
which leadstoa lossofhisownorigins andeventually a lossofhisself.Neillontheother
handsuggests that theuncertainty aboutthenature ofOthello's"savagery" 1997:149)
(Neill
(whether itisinherent or'fashioned'bylago)stemsfrom thefactthat,atleastinthefirst
half
oftheplay,Othello is presentedfrom without ratherthanfrom within:"Othelloappearsto
knowhimself - andwe are allowedto apprehend him- entirely as a 'person'inthe
seventeenth-century sense ofthat word, as one defined byhisactions, hisoutwardattrib-
utes,andhisoffice. Indeeditis as ifhe hadnoinner selftodisturb theimpeccably per-
formed surface. Itisalmost impossible toimagine sucha maninsoliloquy: whatwould he
havetosay?"(Neill 1997:149-150)Itis lagowhowakensinOthello the"inward gaze"into
hisselfwhich thelatter experiences as a "morbidlyemasculating process". Theclimactic
scene at theend is Othello's desperate attempt at "ceremoniously his
reconstituting
externalized masculine persona" (161).

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 RolandWeidle

paradoxical returnto his 'old self. Macbeth's tragedyresultsfromthe fact

that,unlikethe formertwo protagonists'self-induceddeconstruction,a new
concept of identityis suddenlyofferedto himbythewitches.56 The selfofthe
ruthless,scheming and murderingpolitician seems like a cloak that is sud-
denly thrown over him, but one which is also too big forhim. That sentiment
is notonlyexpressed by Macbeth in his replyto the witches'prophecy"Why
do you dress me / In borrowedrobes" (Mac I.iii.106-7), itis also made one
ofthe mainthemes ofthe playbythe extensiveuše ofclothingmetaphors.57
Macbeth's usurped title,which"hang[s] loose about him,likea giant's robe
/ Upon a dwarfishthief (Mac V.ii.21-2), underscores the discrepancy be-
tween Macbeth and his new robes, between himselfas an individualand his
new role. Itis infactnotso muchthe titleitselfthat"hangs loose about him"
butthe underlying concepts ofstrategicappropriation, roleplayand dissimu-
lation.Macbeth's problemswiththe new identity thatis suddenlythrustupon
himare discernibleinhis problemswithperforming and understandingaffect
control,which,as I have shown,is one ofthe mainprerequisitesof roleplay.
Althoughbeingaware thatmaintenanceofexpressive controlis necessary to
cover up his crimes,he failsto practiceit(as seen inthe banquet scene) and
exhibitsa sceptical, moralview:
I am settled,and bendup
feat.
Each corporalagentto thisterrible
Away,and mockthetimewithfairestshow.
False face musthidewhatthefalseheartdothknow.(Mac l.vii.79-82)
Macbeth's face is "as a book where men / May read strangematters"(Mac
l.v.60-1), and Lady Macbeth has to lectureher husband on dissimulation:
To beguilethetime,
Looklikethetime;bearwelcomeinyoureye,
Yourhand,yourtongue;lookliketheinnocent flower,
Butbe theserpentunder't.
(Mac l.v.61-4)58
By killingthe kingMacbeth passes the pointof no return,the pointfrom
where on a dischargingof his new self,of his "giant'srobes" is impossible.

56 Onecouldofcourseargueherethat thewitches Macbeth's

represent subconsciousdesires
to supplanttheking.Sucha psychoanalytic stressesMacbeth's
reading ownsharein
deconstructinghisoldself,and placeshimnearhisdramatic predecessorsLearand
Othello.
Forpsychoanalytical
readingsofMacbethci.Adelmann(1987),Asp(1981),Berger
(1980),States(1985),andWilbern (1986).
57 Cf.alsoBanquo'scomment onMacbeth "Newhonourscomeuponhim, /Likeourstrange
garments, cleavenotto theirmould / Butwiththeaid ofuse"(Mac l.iii.
143-5),Lady
Macbeth'sreproach"Wasthehopedrunk /Whereinyoudressed (MacI.vii.
yourself?" 35-6),
andMacduff's "Lestouroldrobessiteasierthanournew"(Macll.iv.39).
58 Inthemiddle oftheplaytherelationship
betweenMacbethandhiswife changes.Macbeth
takesoverdirectivedominance, anditis nowLadyMacbeth whois lecturedon affect
control
(cf.forexample Maclll.ii.31-36).

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "ForTheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play" 193

As his old moral self, the 'soldier', has not been replaced but must now
coexist witha strategicself, Macbeth experiences a wideningriftbetween
those identities.The line thatdivides the old feudal fromthe new political
concept runs rightthroughMacbeth. As a result,Macbeth experiences an
innerconflict,an alienationfromhis formerself. "To knowmydeed 'twere
best not know myself'( Mac ll.ii.71), Macbeth says immediatelyafterthe
murderof Duncan, and duringthe banquet scene he exclaims to his wife
"You make me strange/Even to thedispositionthatI owe" (Mac lll.v.111-2),
meaningthathe feels estrangedfromhis own nature,whichhe thoughthe
knew.Tryingto bridgethe wideninggap between his selves caused by the
regicideMacbeth findshimselfin a positionwhere in orderto cover up one
crime another has to be committedwhich in turnnecessitates another.
Macbethis virtuallysucked intohis new selfwithoutgettingto knowletalone
masteringit.Tornbetween these twocompetingidentity concepts, Macbeth
eventuallymanages to 'disrobe' himselfof the identitywhich the witches
(and his wife)have imposed upon him.How does he accomplish it? In the
penultimatescene of the play, while being confrontedby Macduffon the
Macbeth rejectsthe witchesand theirprophecies:
battlefield,
Andbe thesejuggling fiendsno morebelieved
Thatpalterwithus ina doublesense,
Thatkeepthewordofpromisetoourear
Andbreakittoourhope.(Mac V.x.19-22)

Onlythencan Macbethfreehimselfofthe"giant'srobes"and returnwithfirm

convictionto the 'soldier's' a-dramaturgicalcode of interaction,
in whichhe
was allowed to excel before his firstmeetingwiththe witches:"Beforemy
body/1throwmywarlikeshield. Lay on, Macduff,/And damned be himthat
firstcries 'Hold, enough!"' (Mac V.x.32-4).59

NorbertElias has shown to what extentthe civilizingprocess depended on

the formationof courts and 'court societies' and how these in tum were
shaped by a regulationof drives and affects.60Thus the formationof a
dramaturgicalcode ofinteraction becomes a constituentfeatureoftheciviliz-
ingprocess.61In the tragedies (and notonlythere)Shakespeare delineates

59 Byfreeing himselfofthedisliked Macbeth

'usurper'-identity
strategic notonlyredeems his
oldself,he also redeems Scotland("Macduff: forso thouart.Beholdwhere
Hail,King,
stands/Th'usurper's cursèdhead.Thetimeisfree."[MacX.xi.20-1])
60 Eliascallsthisphenomenon the"social
constraint
towards (Elias2000:365).
self-constraint
61 Todayitis widely accepted andthefirst
thatthelastdecadesofthesixteenth decadesof
theseventeenth centurieswerecharacterizedbya growingscepticismandambivalent
stancetowards thecourtanditsdramaturgical Ontheonehanditwas
codeofinteraction.
viewed as a "civilizing
force
andas modelofcourtesy andmanner" (Worden 1992:9),on

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194 RolandWeidle

theformation ofsuch a dramaturgicalcode ofinteraction and the impactthat

such a new code has on the individual.In the tragedies priorto Hamlet
dramaturgicalinteractionis not really an option for the individual.Titus
Andronicusand Romeo and Julietare tragediesoffate,notofchoice. Hamlet
reveals the risingimportanceofa dramaturgicalawareness and role play in
social interaction,and moreover,shows how that growingawareness ac-
countsforHamlet'stragedy.InthetragediesafterHamletthetragicprotago-
nistssufferfromtheirdouble vision,the coexistence of an old, ethicalcode
and a modern,strategicmode of interactionbased on a differentiation be-
tween signifierand signified.Troilus,Cressida, Othello,Lear, and Macbeth
realize the necessityforstrategicinteraction,yet failto practice itbecause
theyare stillfirmlyrootedina pre-courtoissociety.62As a result,theyexperi-
ence a slippage of identity.Role play and role distance are forthem desir-
able, yetat the same timeunattainable.That is theirtragedy.

References

William
Shakespeare, (1997).TheNorton Edition.
Shakespeare.Based ontheOxford Ed.
etal. NewYork,London:Norton.
StephenGreenblatt

Adams,Simon(1995).'The Patronage oftheCrowninElizabethan The1590sin

Politics:
TheReignofElizabeth
Perspective". I. Court
andCulture intheLastDecade.Ed.John
Guy.Cambridge etal.: Cambridge UniversityPress.20-45.
Adelmann,Janet(1987).'"Bornofwoman:'FantasiesofMaternal PowerinMacbeth'.
Cannibals and Divorce:Estranging
, Witches, theRenaissance.Ed. MarjorieGarber.
Baltimore:JohnHopkins Press.90-121.
University
Asp,Carolyn(1981).'"Bebloody, boldandresolute:'TragicAction andSexualStereotyp-
inginMacbeth'.StudiesinPhilology 78. 153-169.
Baatz,Ursula(1993). Das SpielistErnst,
derErnst istSpiel:EinVersuchuberunendliche
Spiele".VomErnstdes Spiels: ÜberSpiel undSpieltheorie. Eds. UrsulaBaatz,
Wolfgang Müller-Funk.Berlin:DietrichReimer.5-20.

theotherthecourt"wasreviled, witha persistenceand a repetitiveness in

as striking
as inlife,
literature as a humiliating
arenaofflatteryandservility"
(Worden 1992:10).For
further
literatureonthe"factionalism ofthe1590s"(Adams1995:24) cf.Adams(1995),
Bates(1992),Guy(1995),Hammer (1995),Peck(1990;1993),andUhlig (1973).
62 Sucha society is,according inthenarrower
toElias,"notyeta 'society' senseofa more
continuous, closeanduniform
relatively ofpeoplewith
integration a greater on
constraint
atleastwithin
violence, itsconfines.
Theearlyform ofsucha 'society'inthenarrowersense
slowlyemerges atthefeudal courts.Here,where there
wasa larger confluence ofgoods,
owingtotheamounts produced andtheattachment ofthesecourts tothetradenetwork,
andwhere morepeoplecongregate insearchofservice,a sizeablenumber ofpeoplewas
obligedtomaintain a constantlypeacefulintercourse.
Thisdemanded, towards
particularly
women ofhigher rank,a certaincontrol
andrestraint
ofbehaviour,a moreprecise moulding
ofaffectsandmanners" (Elias2000:255).

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "ForTheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play" 195

Bates,Catherine (1992).TheRhetoric ofCourtship inElizabethan LanguageandLitera-

ture.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
- (1999).Playina GodlessWorld: TheTheory and PracticeofPlayinShakespeare,
Nietzsche andFreud.London:OpenGatePress.
Bateson, Gregory (1987).Stepstoan EcologyofMind:Collected EssaysinAnthropology,
Psychiatry, Evolution,andEpistemology. Northvale, NJetal.:Aronson.
Berger,Harry Jr.(1980).'The EarlyScenesofMacbeth : Prefacetoa NewInterpretation".
Journal ofEnglish LiteraryHistory47. 1-31.
Berger,Peter(1963)."Sociological Perspectives - Societyas Drama".Lifeas Theater:
A Dramaturgical Sourcebook. Eds. DennisBrissett, CharlesEdgley.Chicago:Aldine,
1975.13-22.
Berger,Peter/ThomasLuckmann (1990).TheSocialConstruction A Treatise
ofReality:
intheSociology ofKnowledge. Londonetal.: Penguin.
Bowers, Fredson(1940).Elizabethan RevengeTragedy 1587-1642.Princeton:
Princeton
UniversityPress.
Brecht,Bertolt(1963).Schriften zumTheater 5. Frankfurt/M.:Suhrkamp.
Dennis(1975)."Introduction".
Brissett, Lifeas Theater:A Dramaturgical Sourcebook. Eds.
DennisBrissett, CharlesEdgley.Chicago:Aldine. 1-7.
Caillois,Roger(1979). Man, Play,and Games. Transi.MeyerBarash.New York:
Schocken.
Chriss,JamesJ (1999)."RoleDistanceand theNegational Self. Goffmanand Social
Organization: Studiesin a SociologicalLegacy.Ed. GregSmith.Londonet al.:
Routledge. 64-80.
Dewey,Richard (1969).'TheTheatrical Analogy Reconsidered". AmericanSociologist4.4.
307-311.
Dreitzel,Hans Peter(1968,).Die gesellschaftlichen Leidenund das Leidenan der
Gesellschaft: Vorstudien zu einer Pathologiedes Rollenverhaltens. Stuttgart:
Ferdinand Enke.
Edgley,Charles/Ronny Turner (1975)."MasksandRelations: AnEssayontheSources
andAssumptions ofDramaturgical SocialPsychology". Humboldt JournalofSocial
Relations 3.3.4-12.
Edwards,Philip(ed.) (1988). Hamlet.The NewCambridge Shakespeare.Cambridge:
Cambridge UniversityPress.
EisamanMaus,Katharine (1995).Inwardness and Theater intheEnglish Renaissance.
Chicago/London: TheUniversity ofChicagoPress.
Elias,Norbert(2000).TheCivilizing Process:Sociogenetic andPsychogenetic Investiga-
tions.Transi.Edmund Jephcott withsomenotesand corrections bytheauthor. Re-
visedEdition. Eds. EricDunning, JohanGoudsblom, StephenMennell.Oxford etal.:
Blackwell.
Erikson,Erik(1994).Identity andtheLifeCycle.NewYork,London:Norton.
Evans,GwynneBlakemore(ed.) (1997). Romeo and Juliet.The New Cambridge
Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
University
Garvey, Catherine (1982).Play.SheptonMallet: Fontana/Open Books.
Girard,René (1991).A TheaterofEnvy:William Shakespeare.Oxford et al.: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Goffman, Erving(1972). Encounters: Two Studiesin the Sociologyof Interaction.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
- (1986).FrameAnalysis: AnEssayontheOrganization ofExperience.Boston:North-
easternUniversity Press.
- (1990). ThePresentation ofSelfinEveryday Life.Londonetal.: Penguin.

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
196 RolandWeidle

Greenblatt, Stephen(1984).RenaissanceSelf-Fashioning: FromMoretoShakespeare.

Chicago/London: UniversityofChicagoPress.
Griswold, Wendy(1986).RenaissanceRevivals:CityComedyandRevengeTragedy in
theLondonTheatre1576-1980.Chicagoetal.: University ofChicagoPress.
Andrew
Gurr, (1995).TheShakespearean Stage1574-1642.Cambridge etal.:Cambridge
University Press.
Hammer, PaulE. J(1995)."Patronage atCourt, FactionandtheEarlofEssex".TheReign
ofElizabeth I. Court and CultureintheLastDecade.Ed.JohnGuy.Cambridge etal.:
Cambridge University Press.65-86.
Hare,A. Paul/Herbert H. Blumberg (1988).Dramaturgical Analysis ofSocialInteraction.
With Selections from theWorks ofErving Goffman, DavidA.Snow,LouisA.Zürcher,
andRobert Peters,R.S. Perinbanayagam, Ronny E. Turner andCharlesEdgley. New
Yorketal.: Praeger.
Heidemann, Ingeborg (1968).DerBegriff des Spielesunddas ästhetische Weltbildinder
Philosophie derGegenwart. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Holderness, Graham(1992). ShakespeareRecycled.TheMaking ofHistoricalDrama.
Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hopper,Marianne (1981)."FiveKeyConceptsoftheDramaturgical Perspective". Free
Inquiry inCreative Sociology9.1. 47-52.
Hughes,Everett C (1976).'The SocialDramaofWork". Mid-American ReviewofSociol-
ogy1.1. 1-17.
Huizinga, Johan(1998).HomoLudens : A StudyofthePlay-Element inCulture. London et
al.: Routledge.
Kaštan,DavidScott(1986)."Proud Majesty Madea Subject:Shakespeare andtheSpecta-
cle ofRule".ShakespeareQuarterly 37. 459-475.
Kolb, Michael(1990). Spiel als Phänomen- Das PhänomenSpiel: Studienzu
phänomenologisch-anthropologischen SanktAugustin:
Spieltheorien. Academia-Verlag
Richarz.
Krappman,Lothar(1978). SoziologischeDimensionender Identität. Strukturelle
Bedingungen fürdie Teilnahme an Interaktionsprozessen. Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta.
Lahr,John/Jonathan Price(1973).Life-Show: Howtosee Theater inLifeand Lifein
Theater. NewYork:Viking Press.
Levin,Harry (1965).Christopher Marlowe: TheOverreacher. London:Faber&Faber.
Lipp,Wolfgang (1984)."Kultur, dramatologisch". Österreichische für
Zeitschrift Soziologie
9.1-2.8-25.
Manheim, Michael(1973).TheWeakKingDilemma intheShakespearean History Play.
Syracuse:SyracuseUniversity Press.
McLeod,John(1984)."GroupProcessas Drama".SmallGroupBehavior 15.3.319-332.
Merelman, Richard M (1969).'The Dramaturgy ofPolitics".SociologicalQuarterly 10.2.
216-241.
Müller-Schwarze, Dietland(ed.) (1978). Evolution ofPlayBehavior. Stroudsburg, PA:
Dowden,Hutchinson & Ross.
Nardo, AnnaK (1991). TheLudicSelfinSeventeenth-Century English Literature.
Albany:
StateUniversity ofNewYorkPress.
Neill,Michael(1997). Issues of Death:Mortality and Identity in EnglishRenaissance
Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Peck,LindaLevy(ed.)(1990). TheMentalWorld oftheJacobeanCourt. Cambridge etal.:
Cambridge University Press.
Peck,LindaLevy(1993).Court Patronage andCorruption inEarlyStuart England. London:
Routledge.

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "ForTheyAreActions
thata ManMight
Play" 197

Rackin,Phyllis (1991).Stages ofHistory: Shakespeare'sEnglishChronicles. London:

Routledge.
Röhrs,Hermann(1981). "Das Spiel: Ein Urphänomen des Lebens".Das Spiel,ein
Urphänomen des Lebens. Ed. HermannRöhrs. Wiesbaden:Akademische
Verlagsgesellschaft. 3-22.
Sauterde Maihold,Rosa Maria(1995). Del silencioa la palabra:Mythische und
symbolische Wegezur Identität in den Erzählungen von CarlosFuentes.Frank-
furt/Mainetal.: Lang.
Schabert, Ina (ed.) (1992).Das Shakespeare-Handbuch: Die Zeit- DerMensch- Das
Werk - Die Nachwelt. Kröner.
Stuttgart:
Schütz,Alfred (1962). CollectedPapers. The Problemof Social Reality. Vol. 1. Ed.
Maurice Natanson. TheHague:Nijhoff.
Schwanitz, Dietrich (1977).Die Wirklichkeit
derInszenierung unddie Inszenierung der
: Untersuchungen
Wirklichkeit zurDramaturgie derLebenswelt undzurTiefenstruktur
des Dramas.Meisenheim amGlan:Hain.
- (1978/79)."Theatrum mundiund soziales Rollenspiel: Zur sozialgeschichtlichen
Deutung des Hamlet". ShakespeareJahrbuch West.114-131.
Simkin,Stevie(ed.)(2001).RevengeTragedy. Basingstoke etal.: Palgrave.
Soeffner,Hans-Georg (1989).Auslegung des Alltags- DerAlltagderAuslegung: Zur
wissenssoziologischen Konzeptioneiner sozialwissenschaftlichen Hermeneutik.
Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
States,BertO (1985).'The HorsesofMacbeth". Kenyon Review7.52-66.
Sutton-Smith,Brian (1974)."TheAnthropology ofPlay". Association fortheAnthropological
StudyofPlay2. 8-12.
Uhiig,Claus(1973).Hof kritik
imEngland des MittelaltersundderRenaissance: Studien zu
einemGemeinplatz dereuropäischen Moralistik.Berlinetal.:Walter de Gruyter.
Wallerstein,Robert ConceptofEgoIdentity
(1998)."Erikson's Reconsidered". TheJournal
oftheAmerican PsychoanalyticAssociation 46.1. 13 pp.Online. Internet. 17 Oct2002.
http://www.apsa.org/japa/wallerst.htm
Weidle,Roland (2002). Shakespearesdramaturgische Perspektive: Die theatrale
Grammatik Erving Goffmansals Modellstrategischer Interaktion indenKomödien und
Historien.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Weimann, Robert (1987)."Discourse,IdeologyandtheCrisisofAuthority inPost-Reforma-
tionEngland".The Yearbookof Researchin Englishand American Literature5.
109-140.
Wilbern, David(1986)."Phantasmagoric Macbeth". EnglishLiterary Renaissance16.
520-549.
Willems, Herbert (1997).RahmenundHabitus.Zumtheoretischen undmethodischen
AnsatzErving Goffmans: , Anschlüsse
Vergleiche undAnwendungen. Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamo.
Worden, Blair(1992)."Shakespeare andPolitics".ShakespeareSurvey 44. 1-15.

Roland Weidle
Departmentof Englishand AmericanStudies
HamburgUniversity

This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Fri, 19 Feb 2016 07:06:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions