SGCNZ/Ida Gaskin Shakespeare Essay Competition Winner - Eassin Wang

Drama derives itself from conflict, and a universal conflict has always been that between the desire of the individual and the aims of the collective. Many of Shakespeare’s plays achieve their drama from such conflict and the question of whether individual agency can endure in the face of external pressures from the collective. The drama itself is resolved when the collective triumphs over the individual, or when both forces come to a state where they can coexist. Shakespeare’s tragedies tend to be resolved by the former, while his comedies are resolved by the latter. This essay will examine Antony and Cleopatra and Measure for Measure and the way in which the conflict between the individual and the collective is presented in each. 

It is easy to discern the tragic and comedic natures of these two plays. In Antony and Cleopatra, Antony’s personal desire to be with Cleopatra comes into conflict with the aims of the state of Rome, which require him to fulfil his duties and serve the country as a powerful general. Early in the play, he neglects his responsibilities because of his infatuation with her, leading his soldiers to criticise him, saying that he has been transformed from one of the “triple pillar[s] of the world” into a “strumpet’s fool” (1.1.13-14). Similarly, Octavius censures Antony for “giv[ing] his empire/Up to a whore” (3.6.75-76), condemning him for how he has relinquished political power for love. The play ends in tragedy as his individual desire is extinguished by the aims of the state; Antony is seen as a traitor to Rome for Egypt and is driven to suicide after multiple military defeats at the hands of Octavius. The external pressure of the state ultimately overwhelms his individual desire. Thus, there is a tragic end to the play as these two forces are unable to be reconciled, leading to the destruction of the individual and the annihilation of his desires. 

In Measure for Measure, Isabella’s personal desire to preserve her chastity also comes into conflict with the aims of her family; her brother Claudio’s wish to survive; and the laws of the state dictating that Claudio must be executed for committing fornication. When Isabella pleads with the acting regent of Vienna, Angelo, for her brother, he gives her the ultimatum that he will pardon Claudio if she agrees to sleep with him. In a time when it was believed that committing such a sin would damn her soul to hell and as a woman about to become a nun, Isabella firmly refuses, stating that she’d rather wear the “impression of keen whips” as “rubies” before she yields her “body up to shame.” (2.4.108-111) In response to Claudio’s plea for her to sacrifice her virginity to save him, she calls him a “faithless coward” (3.1.152) for wanting to “take life” (3.1.154) from her shame. As the play progresses though, Isabella preserves her chastity, and Claudio is saved from execution due the Duke of Vienna’s manoeuvring, who arranges for Angelo to be tricked into sleeping with his spurned fiancée Mariana thinking that she is Isabella, deceives him into thinking Claudio has been executed, and punishes Angelo for his draconian rule of Vienna and his hypocrisy. Thus, Isabella’s personal desires come into balance with the aims of her family and the state; the tension between the individual and the collective is resolved and the play draws to a happy close.

However, under more careful scrutinisation, it can be seen that agency was never granted to Isabella from the beginning, thus nullifying the conflict between her personal desire and the aims of her family and the state. While Isabella seems to have agency in her conviction to remain chaste, all of the events of the play are laid bare to the audience as being entirely due to the machinations of the Duke. He leaves Vienna in the hands of Angelo, who is known for his “stricture and firm abstinence” (1.3.13) at a time when the city is overrun with licentiousness because of his own lenience. He intends for Angelo to punish his unruly citizens, “who may, in the ambush of [his] name, strike home” with the Duke’s “nature never in the fight” (1.3.44-46), allowing him to achieve his goals without his name being slandered. The rest of the play, including the help he gives to Isabella and Mariana in tricking Angelo, and his final punishment of Angelo, are only the means to his goal of asserting the law in Vienna without sullying his own reputation. In the final scene, the Duke proposes marriage to Isabella; “...for your lovely sake,/Give me your hand and say you will be mine.” (5.1.549-550) Isabella remains silent; the narrative does not grant her the opportunity to convey her thoughts. When Isabella’s personal desire becomes a cog in the wheel of the Duke’s plan to use Angelo to restore order to Vienna while simultaneously using Angelo as a punishable scapegoat to preserve his reputation, and when her autonomy to give a response to the Duke’s proposal, the conflict between the individual and the collective becomes void: Isabella was never allowed autonomy in the face of the machinations of the state represented by the Duke.

In contrast, Antony is granted agency to assert his personal desire against the aims of the state, despite his failure to triumph over the collective. When Cleopatra deserts with her ships at the Battle of Actium, he “claps on his sea-wing and, like a doting mallard/Leaving the fight in height, flies after her” (3.10.24-25), abandoning a battle that was otherwise favourable for him. He admits that he is “made weak by [his] affection” (3.11,73), yet chooses his love for Cleopatra over what his duty to Rome; saying that her “beck might from the bidding of the gods/Command [him]” (3.11.64-65). Antony’s own decision to commit suicide is primarily motivated by the fact that he incorrectly believes Cleopatra has died, even when he previously resolved to kill her for what he thought was her betrayal, stating that life “is torture” (4.14.57) with her gone and imploring her to wait for him so that they may walk “hand in hand” (4.14.62) in the underworld. While he ultimately fails, Antony’s decision to uphold his personal desire in the face of the aims and pressures of his state proves the existence of his agency and substantiates the conflict between the individual and the collective in this play. 

Indeed, many of Shakespeare’s plays derive their drama from the conflict between the desires of the individual and the collective and the attempt of the individual to assert their agency against the pressures from a collective. The tragic or comedic nature of a play unfolds from how this conflict is resolved; the tragedy closes with a triumph of the collective over the individual, while these two opposing forces are reconciled in a comedy. However, while the struggle of an individual to contend his own will against the collective is clearly tangible in a tragedy, the reconciliation of the individual and the collective in a comedy may be brought about by the nullifying of individual desire so that it is in accordance with the aims of the collective; thus making the conflict between these two forces redundant, leading to a conclusion that is indeed “comic”, but perhaps artificial and contrived.

​