Ideas and moral attitudes in Shakespeare's works. Works of Shakespeare: list

The heyday of English drama began in the late 1580s, when a galaxy of writers, now called "university minds" appeared: Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), Thomas Kyd (1558-1594), Robert Greene (c. 1560-1592), John Lily (c. 1554-1606) and several others. The milestones that marked the beginning of this heyday were two tragedies - “Tamerlane the Great” (1587) by K. Marlo and “Spanish Tragedy” by T. Kdda (c. 1587). The first marked the beginning of the bloody drama, the second - the genre of revenge tragedies.
There is every reason to believe that Shakespeare began his dramatic career

OK. 1590. In the first period of his work, he created a number of bloody historical dramas - the trilogy "Henry VI" and "Richard III" and the tragedy of revenge "Titus Andronicus". Shakespeare's first comedies, The Comedy of Errors and The Taming of the Shrew, were notable for their rather crude comedy, close to farces.
In 1593-1594, there was a turning point. Although Shakespeare never abandoned farce and clowning, in general his new comedies “Two Veronese”, “A Midsummer Night's Dream”, “The Merchant of Venice”, “Much Ado About Nothing”, “As You Like It”, “Twelfth Night” , "The Merry Wives of Windsor" are distinguished by subtle humor. They are dominated by adventurous and adventurous motives and dominated by the theme of love.
Most of the historical plays of this period are colored by faith in the triumph of the best beginnings in public life, which is especially noticeable in three chronicle plays - "Henry IV" (two parts) and "Henry V". Although in them a dramatic struggle between the feudal lords is an indispensable element of action, a fair amount of humor is noteworthy in them. It is in "Henry IV" that the image of Falstaff appears - a masterpiece of Shakespeare's comedy.
The only tragedy of this period, which lasts until the end of the 16th century, is Romeo and Juliet (1595). Its action is imbued with deep lyricism, and even the death of young heroes does not make this tragedy hopeless. Although Romeo and Juliet die, reconciliation of the warring families of Montagues and Capulets takes place over their corpses, love wins a moral victory over the world of evil.
The tragedy "Romeo and Juliet" embodies the optimistic attitude of Shakespeare in the second period. In comedies and the only tragedy of these years, humanity triumphs over the bad beginnings of life.
At the turn of the 16th-17th centuries, a new turning point took place in Shakespeare's mindset. The first signs of it are felt in the historical tragedy "Julius Caesar" (1599). Its true hero, however, is not a great commander, but another Roman figure - Brutus, the sworn enemy of tyranny. He joins a conspiracy against Caesar, striving for sole despotic power, and participates in his assassination. Adherents of Caesar, and first of all Mark Antony, deceive the people with demagogic speeches, the Romans expel Brutus. The noble hero is defeated and commits suicide. Victory goes to the supporters of tyranny. The tragedy is that the people (namely, they play a decisive role in this tragedy) have not matured to understand who are their true and who are imaginary friends. Historical conditions have developed unfavorably for those who wished to establish noble ideals in life, and this is expressed in Julius Caesar.
.Like other representatives of the new worldview, Shakespeare believed that the best beginnings must triumph over evil. However, he and his generation had to make sure that life went a different way. For three centuries European humanism has developed, preaching the need to reorganize life on new, more human principles. It is time to see the consequences of this. Instead, the negative traits of bourgeois development became more and more apparent in all aspects of life. The all-destroying power of gold was added to the remnants of the previous feudal-monarchical injustices.
Shakespeare felt with all his heart that humanistic ideals could not be realized in life. This is expressed in Sonnet 66. Although his translations by S. Marshak and V. Pasternak are more famous, I give another version:
- I call death, I can’t look anymore,
- How a worthy husband dies in poverty,
- And the villain lives in beauty and hall;
- How the trust of pure souls tramples,
- As chastity is threatened with disgrace,
- How honors are given to scoundrels,
- How strength droops before the insolent gaze,
- As everywhere in life the rogue triumphs,
- How arbitrariness mocks art,
- How thoughtlessness rules the mind,
- How painfully languishes in the clutches of evil
All that we call good.
- If it weren't for you, my love, I would have long ago
- I was looking for rest under the canopy of the coffin.
– Translation by O. Rumer
The sonnet was probably written in the late 1590s, when the turning point in Shakespeare's mentality began, leading to the creation of the tragedy Hamlet. It was created, apparently, in 1600-1601. Already in 1603 the first edition of the tragedy appeared. It was released without the permission of the author and the theater in which the play was being played, and was called the quarto of 1603.

1. At first glance, the convergence of "Henry VIII" with the rest of the plays written after 1608 looks rather artificial. What unites "Pericles", "Cymbeline", "The Winter's Tale", "The Tempest"? Enlightened fairy-tale color, the victory of good, on the side ...
2. For a thinking person, the problem of choice, especially when it comes to moral choice, is always difficult and responsible. Undoubtedly, the final result is determined by a number of reasons and, first of all, by the value system of each individual ...
3. If we compare how Hamlet is seen by those who sympathize with him, it turns out that everyone has their own idea of ​​him. Let us add to this that there are those who, highly appreciating Shakespeare's tragedy...
4. What, in fact, is this courtier, apparently the closest to the throne. He probably held a high position under the former king. The new king favors him with his favors and he is the first to be ready ...
5. This comedy has two storylines: comic and love. The love line is formed by Benedict and Beatrice, Claudio and Hero. The Comic Line is formed by Margarita, Ursula, Leonato, Claudio and Don Juan. The main...
6. Juliet Capulet is one of the central characters of the tragedy. D. is shown at the moment of transition from the naive self-sufficiency of a child who has no doubts that the world around her can be different, to ...
7. During the Renaissance in England, dramatic literature became widespread, which was associated with the development of theatrical performances at that time. The theater in England had its own characteristics that distinguish it from ...
8. The use of borrowed plots, which in his processing received a new artistic embodiment, poetic breath and philosophical content; The special role of the jester in the plays - the character who most vividly illustrated the idea of ​​​​world theatricality and ...
9. The loneliness of the protagonist of the tragedy becomes apparent. The appearance of Rosencrantz and Gildenruhl only adds to the disappointment. According to the literary tradition, these characters are considered as Hamlet's friends who betrayed him by conspiring with the authorities. “Playing in...
10. Stratford-upon-Avon - an ancient city located about a hundred miles north-west of London, among picturesque hills, is a monument to Shakespeare. On its winding streets it is easier to meet the inhabitants of London, Manchester and...
11. More than one century has passed since the creation of Shakespeare's tragedy "Romeo and Juliet", but the audience is still worried, following the fate of lovers from Verona, and the actors who got the role ...
12. The hero of the tragedy by W. Shakespeare "Julius Caesar" (1599). Despite the fact that Shakespeare's tragedy is named after him, C. is not the main character, but rather the spring of action. It is around him (at first ...
13. In the last years of Shakespeare's work (1608-1612), his plays take on a different character. They move away from real life. They sound fabulous, fantastic motifs. But even in these plays - "Pericles", "Winter...
14. Love triumphs in the play. Romeo at first only imagines that he loves Rosaline. Her absence from the stage emphasizes the illusion of her existence and infatuation with Romeo. He is sad and seeks solitude. Meeting with...
15. In the tragedy "Hamlet" (1601), William Shakespeare, taking as a basis the plot of a medieval legend and an old English play about Prince Amlet, displayed the tragedy of humanism in the modern world. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, is beautiful...
16. The beginning of the first period falls on the years of national upsurge that came after 1588, which is of decisive importance for the whole tone of Shakespeare's work at that time. The first period contains the most brilliant ...
17. William Shakespeare is a representative of the Renaissance, when the thoughts and feelings of a person were filled with new ideas. But in that cruel era, the humanistic ideas of the Renaissance were not destined to win, and Shakespeare bitterly...
18. The tragedy "Hamlet" was the first of the "great tragedies" by W. Shakespeare. The main idea of ​​the work is the idea that humanity has lost its highest meaning, the word “man” has ceased to be a designation of the highest value, the highest ...
19. ROMEO and JULIET (eng. Romeo and Juliet) are the heroes of W. Shakespeare's tragedy "Romeo and Juliet" (1595), who forever became a symbol of the beautiful, but tragic love of two young creatures, irreparably separated by age-old enmity ...
20. The relevance of Shakespeare's chronicles is explained not by Shakespeare's intention to turn the historical events depicted by him into a political allegory of the present, but by the presence of some similar trends in the historical development of England as in the times when...

Chapter VII

Scientific and philosophical ideas of the Renaissance in the worldview of Shakespeare. - Three cultural types: Henry V, Falstaff and Hamlet. - Henry V. - Falstaff.

We know how ardently and actively Shakespeare responded to the poetry of the Renaissance, but how did he react to its thought? Indeed, in addition to Boccaccio, Petrarch, Rabelais, the same era produced Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Montaigne, Bacon. Shakespeare was even born in the same year as Galileo; Bruno lived in London for about two years from 1583 and enjoyed great popularity in secular and literary societies. A volume of Montaigne's writings was preserved as if with Shakespeare's inscription, and Bacon created his philosophy, one might say, next to Shakespeare the playwright. Researchers have long discovered and continue to discover in his work many echoes of the scientific Renaissance, especially from the works of Bruno and Montaigne. But it is not the particulars that occupy us, but the general warehouse of Shakespeare's thought. Did Petrarch's leading rival stand at the same height as the reader of philosophers?

One can argue about Shakespeare's individual scientific views. In our opinion, for example, the best German connoisseurs of Shakespeare are wrong when they deny the poet's belief in a new astronomical system. Hamlet's obviously mocking letter to Ophelia does not prove anything, and Ulysses' speech in Troilus and Cressida about the subordination of the planets to the Sun is by no means a defense of Ptolemy. On the other hand, it can be doubted that Shakespeare clearly understood the law of blood circulation, announced by Harvey only two years after the death of the poet. Even more dubious are Shakespeare's ideas about gravity. But the conclusions of psychiatrists, on the other hand, are quite reliable. Shakespeare, in his views on the mentally ill, in his amazingly accurate knowledge of ailments, was two centuries ahead of his contemporaries. There was still a deep conviction in the intrigues of Satan, and the sick were subjected to the most severe tortures; the poet, on the other hand, was able to unravel the soil and causes of diseases and even pointed to healing, humane means. Ophelia, Lady Macbeth, King Lear are immortal monuments of brilliant penetration into the most complex secrets of nature and truly cultural ideas about suffering humanity...

Undoubtedly, the poet himself carried out the most important conquest of the new time, which was marked by the development of free thought, the victory of personal experience over traditions and prejudices. And the implementation was quite conscious. Richard II, deposed from the throne, considers the discord between him, the king, and the requirements of the time to be one of the reasons for his fall. Subsequently, Coriolanus will express even more vigorously the ideas of inevitable and certainly legitimate progress:

If we obeyed the custom in everything, no one would dare to sweep away the dust of antiquity, and the truth would forever sit behind the mountains of delusions!

And here the patrician expresses the truth, not for the sake of the pleasure of arrogant self-will, but in the name of personal dignity and noble independence from the habits and demands of the crowd.

But the sources of personal freedom are thought, enlightenment, the knowledge of life and nature, and Shakespeare zealously defends all these foundations of civilization:

In learning is the power, By which we soar to heaven, In ignorance is God's curse.

So says one of the heroes of the second part of Henry VI, and we do not know whether these words belong exactly to Shakespeare; but they are constantly confirmed by the undoubtedly genuine thoughts of the poet in other plays. Father Francis calls "experience" a "companion of science" (Much Ado About Nothing), and other heroes carefully emphasize the unreliability of the old medieval way of life. Richard II and the Venetian Antonio are unanimous about the abuses of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures that flourished in the Catholic realm. The king is confused by the opposite conclusions that thought can draw from texts. Antonio - in response to Shylock's biblical story in justification of usury - points to the art even of villains to hide behind sacred authority. The poet is convinced that dialectics and malicious intent will be able to "consecrate and season with texts and cover with external decoration" any delusion.

And he shows the validity of this thought by a life example - in an eloquent scene at the burial of Ophelia.

Obviously, Shakespeare fully assimilated the main ideas of the philosophical and critical teachings of his era, and the speeches of his heroes often breathe the energy of Luther's denunciations. But the great preacher of the Reformation, who shook the power of tradition, did not find immediate satisfaction in his personal thought either. On the contrary, the new man had to redeem his liberation through the most severe torments of doubt and endless research. Luther at times fell into despair, experienced the real suffering of Prometheus in search for one clear, unshakable truth. The same inheritance went to his descendants. And Shakespeare knows how much enticing charm, but also the thorns lurk in independent mental work - and Hamlet's world motive begins to sound even in Richard's meditation:

Thoughts are the same people; Like them, they can never find peace or be satisfied with themselves.

It is clear that the poet will sincerely and mercilessly rise up against all fanaticism - theoretical, moral and religious. He will subject to ridicule and punishment the frivolous or hypocritical enemies of the natural laws of human nature, he will destroy puritanical hypocrisy and intolerance, and one of his cheerful heroes will express the meaning of this humane and liberation struggle in this way: no pies or wine in the world?" (Twelfth Night).

Thanks to the breadth of his worldview, Shakespeare was able to embrace in his work the main types of different cultural epochs and fulfill the high purpose of art indicated by Hamlet - to embody his age and his time in their true features. He had to act in the transition of the old life to the new path. He saw and personally experienced the collision of the progressive principles of the Reformation and the Renaissance with the customs and authorities of the Middle Ages. Before his eyes, the rapid development of the liberated nature and thought, feelings and mind took place; he himself resolutely took the side of freedom and progress. From the very first works, he began to defend the new and after some time captured a number of psychological types that embody the various historical currents of the era. One of them, a type of medieval man. Others, the brightest, extreme representatives of the two main ideas of the Renaissance: free natural instincts and free critical thought. All three heroes are depicted with great care and strength, but not all of them are equally simple and accessible in terms of psychological composition. The primacy in clarity and integrity belongs, of course, to the hero of antiquity.

Prince Gal, later King Henry V, is one of the most popular figures in English dramatic chronicles, and Shakespeare, for example, undoubtedly used one of the early plays - The Glorious Victories of Henry V. But for us, the question of actual borrowings is again not essential, psychology is always original the property of our poet, and he knows how to raise a historical figure to the height of a universal type. The moral development of Henry, his nature, his vices and talents - all this is a perfect reflection of the Middle Ages, a brief but complete history of a whole period of human culture, eliminated from the scene by the people of the Renaissance.

Prince Gal - an ideally healthy, normal young man - enjoys youth with all the power and ardor of Anglo-Saxon blood. He is the embodied contrast to the thoughtful but naive philosopher - the king of Navarre and consistently reproduces the worldly wisdom of the poet, scattered in comedies.

He does not at all intend to force his nature with deliberate art and a deliberate school of morality. The restlessness of abstract thought is also completely alien to him; for him, as for a medieval person, all higher questions are resolved by those who should know this. Carelessly and without further ado, he slyly takes life as it is given, does not make ideal and impossible demands on it. But an innately balanced, full-night nature will not wither and unwind in a whirlwind of pleasures. And the prince from the experiences of his youth will not endure either disappointment or a decline in moral strength. Experiments will only be a manifestation of a powerful physical organism. They are not so much the result of frivolity and a thirst for pleasure as an excess of blood and energy. The prince has nothing to spend this surplus on: his father, suspicious and autocratic, does not allow him to participate in state affairs - the son labors in a tavern and plays the role of king with Falstaff, sometimes not refusing much more responsible fun. But the moral element and the organic common sense of the prince are unshakable. They make a brilliant young man out of the heir to the throne, they will create the wisest and most popular ruler out of the king. The prince is every moment aware of his passions, and we believe his promise to appear later on like the sun, only temporarily covered by "despicable clouds." This is not only strength, but also a deep consciousness of it, and, consequently, firmness and confidence in actions, proud modesty and restrained, unobtrusive, but in no way invincible nobility. And we see how Prince Gal, Falstaff's drinking companion, is transformed into the Prince of Wales and a courageous warrior. We are present at the amazing scene of the duel of a born and humble hero with the brilliant knight Percy: how much valor and calm power, and so little words and effect! The prince even unquestioningly concedes the glory of his victory to Falstaff. The war is over, and the prince is again a prankster and a reveler. Falstaff is unable to understand the mysteries of this transformation; Henry's simple but morally powerful psychology is a mystery to him, and when the prince decides to "bury all the ancient vices in the grave with his father" and be worthy of power and the throne, Sir John sees no point in a completely natural history. Meanwhile, stormy youth, even for Henry the Sovereign, was not in vain. He personally knew the life of the common people, the hopes and soul of the last of his subjects; on the throne, he will be the most national and practically knowledgeable ruler. In his youth he was not a dreamer - now he will not be an idealist, the creator of broad political plans; all his activities are inextricably linked with the essential reality, without the slightest interference of theories and ideas. This is an efficient owner of a huge state house with all the advantages and disadvantages of an exceptionally practical mind; the same yeoman, soldier, only in the vast field. The poet depicts his touching participation in ordinary soldiers, a rare ability to get close to their life and moral world, and it is in the mouth of Henry V that he puts an enthusiastic speech to the English settlers. Finally, - this is the only scene of its kind - we see the king's declaration of love to the princess, by no means more cunning and elegant than the novel of any English sailor!

Such is the ideal man of the old age, organically strong, spiritually uncomplicated, directly intelligent and chivalrous, in general, whole and happy in his wholeness. New currents have brought into being incomparably more complex natures, and this complexity is the deeper, the nobler the current. The simplest and most accessible ideal of the Renaissance is freedom of feeling, unlimited epicureanism, extreme opposition to the medieval oppression of the flesh and the denial of the earth. This opposition was not slow to create its own philosophy and establish freedom of instincts on ideological foundations. They are known even to the heroines of Boccaccio, and the reasoning of one of them is especially curious for us. We have to deal, apparently, with the most exceptional example of depravity and unscrupulousness, and yet we hear distant echoes of these horrors even in the most elegant poet of the Italian Renaissance.

A lady comes to an experienced woman - to ask for help in some kind of love and not particularly moral enterprise. She immediately agrees and even hurries to refute any objections of strict moralists in advance.

"My daughter, the Lord knows - and He knows everything - that you will do very well. Even if you did not do this for some reason, you, like every young woman, should have done so, so as not to lose the time of youth, because for a man of understanding there is no sorrow higher than the consciousness that he has missed the time. And what the hell are we good for, having grown old, if not only to guard the ashes by the fire ... "

The author himself unconditionally approves of this philosophy and, having told one or another love story, often very reprehensible to the generally accepted moral view, he ends with a prayer to the Lord, "so that He, by His holy mercy, will lead" to the happiness just described and him, the narrator, and "everything Christian souls who desire it."

Naturally, Boccaccio's heroines honor Cupid "on a par with God" and for this "devotion" they count on bliss even in a future life...

Now imagine that such a "religion" will fall into the hearts and heads of people of incomparably more powerful temperaments and abundant physical strength than Italian ladies - it will fall into the sons of a nation that for centuries has generated a huge number of heroic figures, considered in its family the Norfolks, Ghents as ordinary phenomena. , even Richards ...

Cupid here will inevitably turn into a deity of the most frank and by no means elegant and not poetic sensuality, the longing for the "flying hour" will become a frantic cry and insane indomitable pursuit of the grossest sins of the mortal body, all covers and tricks will disappear - only defiant and often cynical passion will remain. ... Falstaff is the most typical English embodiment of the physical ideal of the Renaissance. He is frankly depraved, cynically unprincipled, a humble servant of his belly. And in all these vices, he is only an extreme and at the same time, in English, an integral and consistent exponent of the practice and morality of the Renaissance. The natural rights of human nature to love, earthly happiness are not enough for him, simple freedom of feeling is not enough - he needs an orgy, a riot, a whole storm of instincts, just like the English of the Middle Ages needed uprisings, civil strife - for "the movement of blood and juices of life", according to aptly an eyewitness account, the Bishop of York. It is not enough for Falstaff to destroy pedantry, scholasticism, scientific theories that disfigure the natural course of life - he will generally go against everything that is not material and not sensual and will generally reject all concepts and ideas: honor, conscience, truth. He will not confine himself to recognizing rights behind "pies and wine" - he will fill his existence with them only, just as he will reduce the feeling of love to corrupt debauchery. In a word, this is the same fanatic of new views that scholasticism and asceticism used to create. This is the opposite pole for Malvolio and even more "virtuous" people, for those very Puritans who, under Shakespeare, thundered curses even at poetry and the theater.

From the basic position of Falstaff, the most selfless son of the Renaissance, all other features of his psychology follow. Falstaff is a coward because he values ​​life here too much; to gray hair considers himself a young man, because youth is the highest good for such a "wise man"; finally, Falstaff is unusually gifted and original. These properties are developed by the poet with the same force as the depressing morality of the hero, and in them lies the secret of the strange attraction that surrounds the personality of Falstaff.

The fact is that Falstaff is still a product of a liberating, progressive trend. True, he brought completely legitimate and healthy aspirations to the point of absurdity and ugliness, but the original grain could not disappear without a trace. Falstaff is a representative of the natural and humane compared to the "virtuous" Malvolio. For Falstaff - life and light, on the side of his enemies - moral death and the darkness of slavery or hypocrisy. And, undoubtedly, Shakespeare, who knew contemporary "saints" so closely, involuntarily had to have a certain sympathy for his sinner, in any case, condescendingly look at falsity alongside fanaticism.

And he gave Falstaff a brilliant gift of wit, gaiety, gave him the ability to captivate others and seriously bind them to himself. He reached the point where we feel sorry for the great sinner, when he is rejected and punished by the king, we sympathize with the simple but heartfelt story of his death and understand the tears of Falstaff's friends and servants... This man, who absorbed all the scum that fell to the bottom, settled, standing out from the muddy liquid (Dictionary of V. Dahl).) of his time, also borrowed the spark of his genius - and it, like gold, does not lose its luster or value to the end.

The poet urgently wanted to show that he was creating exactly one of the types of his era. Already in the comedy The End is the Crown of Things, the approaching breath of the epic was felt. Parol is rewarded with many of Falstaff's traits - boastfulness, cowardice, and his attitude towards the count is reminiscent of Falstaff's "friendship" with the prince. But Parol can be successfully tied to the type of boastful warrior in the old comedy: he is just an impudent and pathetic fanfaron, there is not a trace of Jack's incomparable "philosophy", his inexhaustible humor and ingenious resourcefulness in him. The password is out of time and space, Falstaff is an English knight of the 16th century. Internal and external wars completely destroyed many of the most noble families and ruined even more noble estates. The old chivalry fell into decay - both morally and financially - and whiled away its life among all sorts of unseemly acts and tricks: in happy cases, profitable marriage alliances with plebeian families, and then just a fake dice game, nightly robberies, drinking parties at the expense of patrons. All this is reproduced in the chronicle, and Falstaff, with his grandiose figure, continues the gallery of comic types familiar to us from the era of Shakespeare. But the poet, with amazing skill, was able to merge such apparently heterogeneous signs of the time: the decline of the aristocracy and the influence of the Renaissance. It turns out that the extremes of the new Epicurean hobbies, moral unscrupulousness and all kinds of adventurism are most naturally embodied in the personality of a ruined knight, and in the fall he retained aristocratic claims to a careless parasitic life. The class pride of the good-natured and materially helpless Falstaff by nature added only an extra amusing feature to this abyss of wit and comedy.

But Falstaff was destined to appear in the most unexpected guise, not characteristic of his philosophy and his character. They say that Elizabeth was delighted with Sir John of the Chronicle, wished to see him in the role of a lover, and according to the will of the Queen, Shakespeare began a new play and finished it in two weeks.
Elizabeth, Queen of England in a large royal outfit. Engraving by Christine de Passe, after a painting by Isaac Olivier. The inscriptions on the engraving (above): "God is my helper." Under the coat of arms: "Always unchanged". Below: "Elizabeth, B.M., Queen of England, France, Scotland and Virginia, the most zealous defender of the Christian faith, now resting in Bose"

This took place, in all probability, in the spring of 1600. On March 8, the comedy Sir John Oldcastle was played for the Queen. That was the name of Falstaff before - the poet changed the name, having learned that Oldcastle was a famous Puritan in his time and suffered for his beliefs. But in what chronological relation the Merry Wives of Windsor, remade from Sir John Oldcastle, stand for Henry IV, it is difficult to decide: maybe they arose after the first part of the chronicle, and maybe after the second and even after Henry V. For the queen, the poet could resurrect his hero, but for us, in fact, the fate of Falstaff as a character is important.

In comedy, his morality is at the same level, but the same cannot be said about his mind. Before, Falstaff did not consider his appearance to be captivating for women - now he is full of self-deception on this account; before, he could hardly have fallen into repeated and very transparent swindles and subjected his person to ridicule and insults of the philistines and petty-bourgeois; but most importantly, was Sir John able to reach such cowardice and repentance, which are portrayed as a result of his misadventures? It is true that Falstaff, at the hour of his death, cries out to the Lord and curses the sherry, but this by no means proves the inclination of such a sinner by nature and by reason to repentance and moral truths. On the other hand, it is by no means natural for our poet to compose plays for the sake of final teachings. But even if the Falstaff of the chronicle could get caught in the most stupid alteration, he would hardly talk about his journey in a laundry basket with such frankness, as the Falstaff of the comedy does to the imaginary Mr. Brooke. With all the riddles, one impression is quite certain: the comedy was written hastily. This, incidentally, explains its prosaic form. The scenes were set with a predetermined intention - to amuse the audience with curious incidents and in a particularly funny way to present the protagonist, who is least fit for a knight of love. Naturally, the last mockery of Falstaff under such conditions could have ended with the complete humiliation of the hero, leading him through all the steps of senile stupidity to pitiful tearful repentance. In terms of the content of the comedy itself, this outcome is plausible, but only the comedy itself should not be viewed as a logical continuation of the chronicle, although the hero retains some common features in all plays.
Shakespeare theater. Engraving from the London "Rishgitz Collection". Depicts one of the theaters of the early 17th century.

Regardless of Falstaff's role, The Merry Wives of Windsor stands in stark contrast to Shakespeare's other comedies. There, the action takes place in an ideal atmosphere of subtle feelings and lyrical idylls (the only exception is the Taming of the Shrew), and only occasionally the sounds of everyday life burst into poetic harmony when jesters appear on the stage. In the Merry Wives of Windsor, on the contrary, everyday life reigns supreme. Moreover, everyday life is provincial, simple-hearted, sometimes rude, little poetic, although not devoid of a kind of humor. Almost all the actors are from the simple class and are not able to pour out their feelings in the privileged form of sonnets and canzones. Only one ray of the usual Shakespearean lyricism is thrown into this gray atmosphere: among the prosaic fathers and mothers, the romance of a daughter and her lover, full of all the freshness of first love. But most of the scenes were to please the undemanding taste of Elizabeth: the poet wrote a lively, frank farce and, for the sake of amusement, even partly sacrificed his incomparable hero. The emergence of such a play is all the more original because it coincided with the work of the poet on a work of a completely different nature. This piece is Hamlet.

It is difficult today to imagine world literature without the work of W. Shakespeare and A. S. Pushkin.

Two different writers who lived on different continents, in different eras, at different times, brought up on different literary traditions. But both Shakespeare and Pushkin try their hand at creating dramatic works. At the same time, Shakespeare's tragedy is the main literary genre in which Shakespeare became the "Great Shakespeare". The love and tragic death of Romeo and Juliet, the doubts and torments of Hamlet, the suffering of Lear - all this deeply disturbed the great English playwright and also all his contemporaries, the crowd that filled the medieval theater on the outskirts of London. Pushkin also tried himself in different literary genres. But he also had tragedy.

William Shakespeare (1564-1616) is the greatest writer of the Renaissance. He is one of those titans who are born of this era, but in his significance he goes far beyond its limits. The art of the great English writer is the art of high artistic truth. His creations do not become the property of the past, they are not covered with the dust of centuries - they do not lose their living beauty and power of influence even after almost four hundred years. Shakespeare's images with their rich inner life, tension of passions, depth of feelings and thoughts find a warm and lively response from completely different viewers. What explains the vitality and effectiveness of works of art created in such a distant past? The key to this is that, comprehending the truth of life, the historical truth, Shakespeare raised such important questions in his works that outgrew his time and passed on to the next generations. Knowing and reflecting the present in artistic images, he was directed to the future. Deeper than all his predecessors and contemporaries, Shakespeare penetrated into the inner world of man. He comprehended the suffering, vices and disasters that are inevitably born and grow on the soil of such a social system, where titles and gold serve as a measure of a person's value. We can consider Shakespeare's work as the highest literary achievement of the Renaissance. His plays absorbed the whole range of ideas of that time, humanistic aspirations for justice and knowledge of the truth of life. In his works, the peculiarities of the era, its progressive aspirations and its deep contradictions, which appeared especially sharply and in a peculiar way in the history of England, were reflected with the greatest force.

Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin (1799-1837) is the greatest folk poet, who embodied the achievements of previous domestic and world literature, marking a higher stage of its further development with his work. Of the incomplete 38 years lived, almost 25 A. S. Pushkin devoted to poetic creativity. These years not only elevated him to the pinnacle of fame, they gave a new look to Russian literature, opened up for it such opportunities that allowed it to become a universally recognized literature of world significance, original and at the same time public content. The poet denounced negative characters, fought against individualism and at the same time affirmed positive images. Pushkin is the most vivid expression of the feelings, thoughts and aspirations of his time. The ideal for him is a person who wants to own everything positive and overcome everything negative in the experience of mankind throughout its history. In Pushkin, the understanding of the contradictions of real life is balanced by the awareness of the greatness and nobility of man - the only creator of history. He deeply and organically accepted the traditions of the Enlightenment and Renaissance. Like all enlighteners, Pushkin believed in the power of reason and its victory over darkness, and his faith is based on a deep analysis of his time. But Pushkin, rejecting the enlightenment opposition of the hero to the masses, on the contrary, was looking for sources that would explain the necessity of the sharpest turns in history. Pushkin overcame classical and sentimental-romantic influences, went through civil romanticism and, relying on the achievements of his progressive predecessors, became the founder of a new Russian literature - the literature of reality. The behavior of the heroes of Pushkin's works is determined by their social environment, but they actively seek to protect their human rights and transform the surrounding reality. Experiences, feelings, moods of the characters are revealed in external actions, deeds and gestures. Pushkin emphasizes the individual and reveals the social and typical features of the characters. Pushkin's work has become an example of a realistic method and style.

The remarkable English writer W. Shakespeare and the great Russian poet A. S. Pushkin often addressed the theme of villainy in their works. But this problem is most clearly expressed in Shakespeare's famous tragedy "Hamlet" and in Pushkin's famous cycle of dramatic works "Little Tragedies".

The tragedy "Hamlet" (1601-1602) is one of the greatest works of world drama. Written for a certain time and responding to the mood of Shakespeare's contemporaries, for more than three centuries it has attracted many generations of readers and viewers with the significance of content and mastery of form. The skill of the author was manifested in the fact that in a relatively small work, he gave a rich picture of life and depicted the fate of several people, tried to comprehend the psychology of human actions. "Hamlet" is a bunch of life.

This story was first recorded by the chronicler Saxo Grammatik in Latin.

King Rerik of Denmark entrusts the management of Jutland to two brothers - Horvendil and Fengon. The fearless and successful Horvendil, after three years of war with the Norwegians, brings honorary trophies to Rerik, and he gives his daughter Gerut for him. Fengon out of jealousy kills his brother and takes possession of Gerut. However, the cunning and decisive Amlet (Hamlet in the pronunciation of the Jutlanders who settled the east of Britain), the son of Horvendil and Gerut, in the most difficult conditions, almost alone, with the help of tricks, managed to deceive numerous powerful enemies and, having killed many people, avenged the murder of his father.

The author does not indicate the specific time of action, but, judging by the fact that Horvendil goes on Viking campaigns, messages are written on a tree, and the Danes dictate their will to the kings of Britain, it takes place around the 7th-9th centuries. During the Renaissance, the French writer Belforet retold the story with significant changes in his Tragic Histories (1576). One of Shakespeare's predecessors, apparently Thomas Kyd (1558-1594), using the Belfort plot, wrote the tragedy "Hamlet", which was on stage in 1589 and 1594. In creating his tragedy, Shakespeare used Kid's play. For Shakespeare, history has always served as raw material for creating action-packed performances. But, as in other similar cases, he gave this story a completely new, original interpretation.

Although the action is relegated to the distant past and takes place in medieval Denmark, Shakespeare draws here typical images of his contemporaries. Hamlet is a tragedy about how a person discovers the existence of evil in life. Shakespeare portrayed exceptional villainy - brother killed brother. But the meaning of Hamlet's story goes beyond this case. Hamlet himself perceives this fact not as a private phenomenon, but as one of the expressions of the fact that evil has become ubiquitous and has taken deep roots in society. Speaking of the "rotten Danish state", denouncing the "corrupt age", he means England of his time.

Pushkin expressed his understanding of the psychology of villainy in a cycle of literary works called "Little Tragedies".

The cycle of short poetic pieces for reading, which includes the works: "The Miserly Knight", "Mozart and Salieri", "The Stone Guest", "Feast during the Plague", was not published in full during Pushkin's lifetime. The title - "Little Tragedies" - was given by the editor during posthumous publication. The author himself hesitated for a long time in choosing the name of the cycle (“dramatic scenes of learning experiences”). "Little tragedies" were fixed, which were destined to become great. The small form provided greater concentration of thought. The incandescent drama of disturbing experiences, the desire for their artistic and philosophical analysis predetermined the central theme of the cycle - the tragic fate of the individual.

Although the characters of "Little Tragedies" do not lose their personal will and act according to their passions, their passions themselves are born of the living conditions in which the characters find themselves. And no matter how diverse the spiritual movements of stage faces are - lust for power and stinginess, ambition and envy, love and fearlessness - they go back to one. Such a common idea-passion for the heroes of "Little Tragedies" is the thirst for self-affirmation. Endowed with the desire for happiness, Pushkin's heroes cannot understand it otherwise than the enjoyment of life. And in order to achieve happiness, they want to prove their superiority, exclusivity, acquire special rights for themselves. In this they see the meaning of life. The heroes of the tragedies are exceptional, the works themselves are reflections about a person, about his capabilities, about the problem of villainy. What is villainy?

Turning to the Dictionary of the Russian Language, edited by S.I. Ozhigov, we read: “Atrocity is the same as atrocity.

Crime is a serious crime."

Let's turn to Shakespeare. Before us is the ancient castle of the Danish kings - gloomy Elsinore. A castle that expresses the whole society. All mankind in the face of Elsinore.

The inhabitants of the castle are divided into two opposite groups. On the one hand, there is a gloomy, lonely figure of Prince Hamlet, dressed in mourning, overcome by grief. On the other hand, the self-satisfied and, at first glance, complacent rulers of Denmark - King Claudius, Queen Gertrude and their entourage. Hamlet, student

Wittenberg University, the center of medieval scholarship, is far from this courtly world and hostile to it.

The main enemy of Hamlet in Elsinore is his stepfather, King Claudius, "the jester on the throne", "the king of colorful rags", as Hamlet himself characterizes him. It is the opposite of the "wise man on the throne" ideal that the humanists dreamed of. This is a real image of the "bloody monarch" hostile to the people. Claudius is cowardly, two-faced and therefore especially disgusting. He is incapable of direct struggle, he commits crimes on the sly, hiding behind the guise of virtue and piety. And it is by no means high ambition that attracts him to crimes, but petty passions - the desire to live "to his heart's content", to have fun "to his heart's content". Realizing that his conscience is unclean, he repents before the Lord God in his chapel, contemplating new murders at this time. The image of this "bloody king" embodies features that are especially hated by Shakespeare.

The queen mother, Gertrude, is a weak and limited woman, carried away by an insignificant and vicious person. She is deprived of fidelity and constancy of feelings, those virtues that Shakespeare especially highly valued. The queen shows some concern for her son, but internally she is far from him, alien to his interests.

The support of the bloody monarchs, their attorneys and advisers were flattering and cunning courtiers like Polonius. Narrowness and complacency are the main features of this "statesman". He imagines himself to be the smartest politician, but this is just a court politician, an empty talker who does not care about the interests of the state in the least, but thinks only about how to please the king and achieve prosperity for himself and his children. He is a worthy assistant to his master. The goals of both are equally insignificant, the basis of their life activity is petty egoism.

From his own experience, Polonius was convinced that the surest path to success in the world of court intrigues is cunning, caution, hypocrisy. The favorite tricks of the old courtier are eavesdropping, informing and peeping. Shakespeare gives him an excellent speech characterization. Polonius's speech is a mixture of the common truths of "worldly wisdom", the philosophy of the "golden mean" with the incoherent and verbose old man's chatter, the "weaving of words" characteristic of the courtier of the 17th century. Here is an example of Polonius' "reasoning" about Hamlet's alleged madness:

There is no art here, my lady.

That he is crazy is a fact. And the fact that it's a pity.

And sorry, that's a fact. Foolish turnover.

But still. I will be artless.

Let's say he's crazy. due

Find the cause of this effect,

Or a defect, for the effect itself

Defective due to reason.

The brisk young courtiers, starting their "political" careers, are advancing along the same paths. They are even more insignificant than Polonius, who still has human feelings - love for his children. Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Osric and the like are the embodiment of spiritual emptiness. Shakespeare deliberately emphasizes their facelessness, drawing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as a kind of "pair image". They are obedient tools in the hands of crowned assassins, they have no will and opinions of their own, they are deprived of honor and conscience, they do not understand what friendship and loyalty are. Their lies and treachery are covered with secular gloss and a mask of benevolence. Hamlet calls Osric a "midge" and compares people like him to bubbles. Osric's pretentious and empty speech is typical of the society dandies of that time.

King Claudius and his court embody all the vices that revolt the honest soul of Hamlet: despotism, sycophancy, drunkenness, deceit and hypocrisy.

In the whole system of images of the tragedy, the crisis that the humanistic thought of England experienced at the beginning of the 17th century found expression. The Middle Ages are over. The feudal era, where loyalty to the overlord and military prowess were considered the main virtues of a person, was replaced by a new period of history. The time has come for new ideas, values, beginnings. Now in the first place were enterprise, the ability to adapt to any conditions, to conduct profitable business.

A slightly different time is described in one of Pushkin's "Little Tragedies" - "The Miserly Knight".

Medieval society is the world of knightly tournaments, touching patriarchy, worship of the lady of the heart. The knights were endowed with feelings of honor, nobility, independence, they stood up for the weak and offended. Such an idea of ​​the knightly code of honor is described in the tragedy.

The Miserly Knight depicts that historical moment when the feudal order has already cracked, and life has entered new shores. The right to freedom was provided to the knights by their noble origin, feudal privileges, power over lands, castles, and peasants. But the world has already changed a lot. In order to maintain their freedom, the knights were forced to sell their possessions and maintain dignity with the help of money. The pursuit of gold has become the essence of time. This rebuilt the whole world of knightly relations, the psychology of knights.

Already in the first scene, the brilliance and splendor of the ducal court is just the outward romance of chivalry. Previously, the tournament was a test of strength, dexterity, courage, and now it amuses the eyes of illustrious nobles. Albert is not very happy about his victory - the thought of a pierced helmet weighs on a young man who has nothing to buy new armor.

O poverty, poverty!

How it humiliates our hearts!

He complains bitterly. And admits:

What was the fault of heroism? - stinginess.

Albert obediently submits to the stream of life that carries him to the Duke's palace. Thirsty for entertainment, the young man wants to take a worthy place surrounded by overlord and

stand equal with the courtiers. Independence for him is the preservation of dignity among equals.

Money haunts Albert's imagination wherever he goes. The frantic search for money formed the basis of the dramatic action of The Miserly Knight. Albert's appeal to the usurer and then to the Duke are two acts that determine the course of the tragedy. And it is no coincidence that it is Albert, for whom money has become an idea-passion, that leads the tragedy.

Albert has three options: either get money from a pawnbroker, or wait for his father's death (or hasten it himself) and inherit wealth, or force his father to adequately support his son. Albert tries all the ways leading to money, but they end in complete failure.

This is because Albert is not in conflict with individuals, but with the whole century. Knightly ideas of honor and nobility are still alive in him, but he already understands the relative value of noble rights and privileges. Naivety is combined in Albert with insight, knightly virtues - with sober prudence.

Thus, all paths to gold, and hence to personal freedom, lead Albert to a dead end. The struggle turns out to be powerless and in vain: the passion for money is incompatible with honor and nobility. Therefore, hatred is born for the father, who could voluntarily save his son from poverty. Gradually, the secret thought of the death of his father turns into an open desire.

But if Albert preferred money to feudal privileges, then the Baron is obsessed with the idea of ​​power. Admiring his golden "hill", the Baron feels like a ruler:

I reign! What a magical shine!

Obedient to me, my power is strong;

Happiness is in it, my honor and glory are in it!

The Baron knows well that money without power does not bring independence. From his point of view, wealth that is not based on the sword is "squandered" with catastrophic speed.

Albert is such a "squanderer" for the Baron. Therefore, the son, who can only squander wealth, is a living reproach to the Baron and a direct threat to the idea defended by the Baron. From this it is clear how great the Baron's hatred for the heir - the squanderer, how great his suffering at the mere thought that Albert would take power "over his state."

However, the Baron also understands something else: power without money is also insignificant. The sword was laid at the feet of the Baron of possession, but did not satisfy his dreams of unlimited power. What the sword did not complete, gold must do. Money thus becomes both a means of protecting independence and a path to unlimited power.

The idea of ​​unlimited power turned into a fanatical passion and gave the figure of the Baron power and greatness. The seclusion of the Baron, who retired from the court and deliberately locked himself in the castle, can be understood as a kind of protection of his dignity, noble privileges, age-old life principles. But, clinging to the old foundations and trying to defend them, the Baron goes against the times. The feud with the age cannot but end in a crushing defeat for the Baron.

The reasons for the tragedy of the Baron are also in the contradiction of his passions.

However, the Baron is a knight. He remains a knight even when he is talking with the Duke, when he is ready to draw his sword for him, when he challenges his son to a duel and when he is alone. Knightly valor is dear to him, his sense of honor does not disappear.

The lust for power of the Baron acts both as a noble property of nature (thirst for independence), and as a crushing passion for the people sacrificed to it - the Baron dreams of that. For everything to obey him:

What is not under my control? like some kind of demon

From now on I can rule the world;

If I only want, halls will be erected;

To my magnificent gardens

The nymphs will run in a frisky crowd;

And the muses will bring me their tribute,

And the free genius will enslave me,

And virtue and sleepless labor

They will humbly await my reward.

I whistle, and to me obediently, timidly

Bloodied villainy will creep in,

And he will lick my hand, and into my eyes

Look, they are a sign of my reading will.

Everything is obedient to me, but I am nothing

Obsessed with these dreams, the Baron cannot find freedom. His lust for power is reborn into a different, much more base passion for money. The baron thinks that he is a king, to whom everything is “obedient”, but unlimited power does not belong to him, but to the pile of gold that lies in front of him.

However, before his death, chivalrous feelings stirred up in the Baron. He had long convinced himself that gold represented both honor and glory. However, in reality, the honor of the Baron is his property. This truth pierced the Baron at the moment when Albert offended him. Everything collapsed in the Baron's mind at once. All the sacrifices, all the accumulated treasures suddenly appeared meaningless. The hour of impotence of gold has come, and a knight woke up in the Baron:

So rise, and judge us with a sword!

It turns out that the power of gold is relative, and there are such human values ​​that are not sold or bought. This thought refutes the way and beliefs of the Baron.

The individualistic consciousness and "terrible hearts" of Pushkin's heroes are characteristic of the "terrible age".

But if in The Miserly Knight "terrible hearts" are characteristic of all characters, then in Shakespeare's tragedy there is a hero who decides to fight, and to fight not with an individual, but with the whole "terrible age", with all its villainy and cruelty. .

Prince Hamlet - a new man, suddenly aware of his alienness in the strange unreal world of the royal palace, the beginning of this realization was laid in front of the walls of the Elsinore Palace, where the shadow of his late father-king appeared to Hamlet.

For the first time, the prince felt the breath of fate, for the first time entered into a conversation with the inhabitant of the world of the dead. The first scene of the tragedy is striking in its grandeur. The ghost calls Hamlet with him to tell the prince the terrible truth about the death of his father, the former king of Denmark, on the edge of the cliff. Perhaps if Galet had not met with the ghost of his father, then the history of Elsinore Castle would not have ended so tragically. But Hamlet met this ghost - this black man, and Hamlet learned the whole truth about the death of his father.

The image of a black man who informs or warns about something, about some terrible events in the future or the past, is also found in the work of A. S. Pushkin.

Almost all poems, dramas, scenes, fairy tales, stories of the poet are interconnected by one sign: the invasion of supernatural otherworldly forces into human life. But nowhere did this idea become such a terrible blur as in the quiet tread of the faceless black man in the tragedy Mozart and Salieri.

We know nothing about a black man, we cannot imagine the features and expression of his face. This strange customer for Mozart is only “someone” or “the same”, dressed in black, something almost otherworldly, incorporeal. And there is nothing strange in his very appearance in Mozart's house, because composers, especially poor ones, often wrote music to order.

But Mozart is worried that this black man does not come for his order - for the requiem. In the strange visitor, dressed in black, Mozart's soul felt the herald of death. And it turns out that he composed this mournful music for himself, because he himself admits that “it would be a pity to part with my work, even though the Requiem is completely ready.”

The black man is not a figment of Mozart's imagination, because not only Mozart himself saw him, others reported to him about the visits of the black man three times. And now, exhausted by insomnia, darkened by suspicion, Mozart goes to Salieri and says: “I am ashamed to admit it.” But why is it reasonable? After all, they are usually ashamed of something bad. Perhaps it is said “ashamedly” because here is not a vague premonition, but a suspicion that has an exact address - Mozart connects the black man and Salieri:

Here and now

It seems to me that he is the third with us

What a cheerful, light Mozart can be discussed in the first scene! What kind of "idle reveler" is here. Mozart complains of constant insomnia: "My insomnia tormented me." "Mine" - so they say about something permanent, familiar, established. No time for festivities in these three weeks. And Mozart goes to a friend, deciding to confess his suspicions, to confess, to cleanse his soul.

But Salieri behaves strangely. Right now he is asking impatient questions, interrupting the speaking Mozart. Until that moment, Salieri calmly listened to Mozart to the end. Salieri is stunned by the news of the Requiem. Before asking how long Mozart has been composing the Requiem, he can only exclaim: “Ah!”. It's "A!" piercing, because Salieri sentenced Mozart to death, and he, knowing nothing about it, himself, as it were, foreshadows his death. Salieri is struck by the insight of a genius. And so that Mozart does not guess anything, he behaves like a conscious ally of a faceless visitor, he distracts Mozart with a joke and lulls his attention. Both, each in their own way, feel the breath of Mozart's approaching death. It seems that the characters read each other's minds. Indeed, it was today that Antonio Salieri's decision to poison Mozart was strengthened, and he, as if anticipating his fate, asks:

Oh, is it true, Salieri,

That Beaumarchais poisoned someone?

Having accused the whole universe of injustice, Salieri comes to the idea of ​​the need to free humanity from Mozart:

I have been chosen to

Stop - otherwise we all died

The phenomenon of Mozart is not acceptable for Salieri - he does not envy the genius of Mozart, he believes that Mozart is an “idle reveler”, that he did not earn his heavenly songs, they got him for free. Therefore he exclaims:

there is no truth on earth.

But there is no truth - and above.

Yes, he takes upon himself the right to judge both heaven and earth. Salieri asserts his own truth as the only one. Salieri commits the sin of Judas. And the scene in the Golden Lion tavern is like a symbol of the Last Supper.

However, Mozart is attracted to Salieri. Mozart feels the fatal radiation emanating from him, and partly consciously, partly intuitively fights not only with his own, but also with his darkness, with every shadow of evil. We feel that the black man is not just a real person, we feel that this is also the black conscience of Salieri himself.

The choice of Shakespeare's hero, Hamlet, is also difficult. The choice of the prince is not only ethical, but also mystical. He believed the ghost, or rather, he confirmed the prince's suspicions. Testimonies of ghosts, spirits and other inhabitants of the other world have never been considered evidence or legal evidence of anyone's guilt or innocence. Claudius would have been acquitted if the court had dealt with his case. But Hamlet's judgment is not like that. The prince judges not according to written laws, but according to the rule - blood for blood. He is ready to do anything to punish Claudius, the murderer of his father. Terrible is the crime, but even more terrible is the cover of lies and hypocrisy under which it lurks.

You can smile, smile

And be a villain. If not everywhere

That, for sure, in Denmark.

Hamlet makes such a bitter conclusion.

The grief of the prince and his desire to fulfill his duty - to punish evil - outgrow the personal framework: he feels called not only to avenge Claudius for the death of his father, but to stand up for outraged justice, against the shameless domination of lies and vice, to stand in single combat with evil reigning in Denmark, with its "corrupt age".

How is the relationship between a person who bears the burden of the "connection of times" and a society full of deceit, betrayal, treason? How to hold on? how not to fall? Hamlet decides to close himself off from people, from society, to close his soul with a lock and put on a mask, a mask of madness. He must "connect the times" and feels that he lacks strength. He is angry at his own impotence and helplessness, he is alone surrounded by hundreds of people, he has no friends, but many enemies.

In addition, Hamlet is in love, but he must hide his feelings from Ophelia, because she can be a weapon in the hands of enemies. Her father - Polonius and brother - Laertes convince the girl not to believe the oaths of Hamlet in love, not to meet with him, to be prudent and cautious. And the timid Ophelia agrees to be submissive to her father in everything.

In the poetic image of Ophelia, depicting her sad fate, Shakespeare shows the hostility of the world, such as Claudius and Polonius, to simple and beautiful human feelings. Ophelia is a victim of a world of crimes and lies, intrigues and deceit. She loves Hamlet very much, but at the same time she is deeply attached to her father and believes in everything. Ophelia says that Hamlet is smart, charming, noble, but she herself is forced to admit that for her this is in the past:

What charm the mind died!

A combination of knowledge, eloquence

And valor, our holiday, the color of hopes,

The legislator of tastes and decency,

Their mirror is all shattered. Everything, everything

If the people who should be closest are breaking the law, what can you expect from others? For this reason, Hamlet dramatically changes his attitude towards her. His love for Ophelia was sincere, but the example of his mother makes him draw a sad conclusion: women are too weak to withstand the harsh tests of life. In order to ease his break with Ophelia, Hamlet mocks her. He wants to show Ofelia that he is thoughtless and cruel - therefore, Ofelia will leave him. Hamlet condemns not only Ophelia, but all women. And Ophelia sincerely advises to get out of that vicious circle of court life in which she finds herself - "to go to the monastery." Hamlet refuses Ophelia also because this love can distract him from revenge, which is more important to him than ardent feelings.

Ophelia finds herself between two warring camps. She does not have so much strength to break away from her father and brother, from her usual family nest and openly be close to Hamlet. She is a submissive and obedient daughter of Polonius, who completely trusts him with her fate and her secrets.

Innocent and meek, Ophelia cannot understand the meaning and significance of the struggle that is taking place in Elsinore, she believes in the madness of Hamlet and limply agrees to become a “testing tool” in the hands of Polonius and Claudius. She is unable to endure the heavy blows of fate that fall on her, and perishes like a flower crushed by a storm.

Hamlet is indirectly to blame for the death of Ophelia, but he is justified by the fact that he fought against evil, in the name of sacred revenge.

If Hamlet's madness is just a mask, then Ophelia's madness causes pity and pain in readers. Innocent Ophelia became a victim of envy, cruelty and malice of society.

The theme of love and death, unhappy love is also raised in the tragedy "The Stone Guest" from the cycle of dramatic works "Little Tragedies" by A. S. Pushkin.

For The Stone Guest, Pushkin chose the plot of ancient Spanish legends and their famous hero. Don Juan under the pen of Pushkin appeared as a "poet" of love.

The gloomy Middle Ages are leaving in the past, giving way to a new era - the early Renaissance.

The special tension, the brightness of love is set off by the close proximity to death, which gives a purely Spanish character to intimate feelings. In the love of heroes, one feels the harbinger of a disastrous end. Don Juan's love affairs are inseparable from the death of his rivals. Don Juan's date with Laura ends with the death of Carlos. Cavaliers Laura Carlos prophesies death. Don Juan meets Dona Anna at the cemetery, and his last meeting with her ends with the death of the hero. Life and death go side by side.

The feeling of a turning point in the Middle Ages is supported in Pushkin's tragedy by the fact that the time has come for the emancipation of human feelings. Free passions break out. The Middle Ages are still alive in the image of Carlos, the Monk, Dona Anna, who daily visits her husband's grave, hides her face and retires to her house. Leporello with his fear of higher powers. There is also a lot of old customs in Don Juan: he is still a loyal knight of the king and knows well that he goes against traditions, soliciting the love of Dona Anna. But in general, Don Juan, like Laura, are people of the Renaissance. Free passions have awakened in them, they joyfully accept life, glorify its pleasures, recklessly indulge in them, do not know moral prohibitions, church and state institutions.

The change from one great era to another passes through the hearts of people. Don Juan is the enemy of Don Alvar and therefore his widow Dona Anna.

Love for the wife of the murdered Don Alvar and the need to love resurrected in Don Anna - such is the psychological collision, which acquires a special acuteness, also because Don Anna, unaware of it, fell in love with her husband's killer. Before Dona Anna did not know love: she married Don Alvar at the insistence of her mother. The strength of the passion that gripped her is restrained by customs, but Dona Anna, carried away by love, responds to the call.

However, the true triumph of free feelings is captured by Pushkin in the images of Laura and Don Juan.

Don Juan is attractive with cheerfulness, he is full of love, full of thirst for sensual pleasures. Having fallen in love, he is "glad to embrace the whole world." Laura is sincerely and serenely open to love. She and Don Juan are connected by spiritual closeness. Laura is not afraid of anything. Dinner at Laura's is a feast of kindred spirits, among whom Carlos looks like a stranger. Don Juan also knows neither heavenly nor earthly fear. Enjoying, he plays both his own and someone else's life, always ready to justify himself and shift the blame on the enemy.

However, the love of Pushkin's heroes, especially Laura and Don Juan, is not only free and disinterested, but also self-willed. With Laura, it is not controlled by any moral norms, while with Don Juan it displaces all other spiritual movements. This duality of the era itself - the ecstasy of earthly life, reliance on one's own strength, a thirst for pleasure and at the same time impudent self-will, contempt for all moral standards, neglect of freedom and even the life of another person, determines the originality of Pushkin's hero. Don Juan is ardent and cold, sincere and deceitful, passionate and cynical, courageous and prudent. He does not know the boundary between good and evil. Carrying away Dona Anna, he says that he fell in love with virtue in her. It “seems” to him that under the influence of a new love feeling, he “was completely reborn.” And at the same time, the hero remains the same Don Juan, "the improviser of a love song." Don Juan is destroyed not by atheism and love adventures, but by the "cruel age" and the self-will inherent in the hero.

Already in the scene with Laura, kissing his girlfriend while Carlos is dead, he, of course, blasphemes. Even Laura, rushing to Don Juan, catches herself.

Inviting the statue of the commander to his love date, he is defiantly impudent. Human ethics, nobility requires to leave the dead man alone. Don Juan, on the other hand, first taunts the dead, and then, not content with the order of the servant, he himself goes to the monument to the Commander and repeats his fantastic invitation.

The love meeting in the last, fourth scene, again, as in the scene with Laura, takes place with the dead. After the unexpected consent of the statue, Don Juan is confused for the first time, for the first time he feels the power of fatal forces and involuntarily lets out an exclamation: “Oh God!”

The statue's invitation cannot be unequivocally interpreted. Don Alvar became a mute sentinel shadow over Dona Anna's feelings. He asserted his rights over her, first during his lifetime - with money, and then after death - with customs sanctified by religion. Don Juan wants to free Dona Anna from the terrible shackles, going against the religious fanaticism and hypocrisy that Don Alvar personifies. But, inviting the commander he killed to guard a love meeting with his widow, Don Juan also discovers his own moral inferiority. The noble, chivalrous principle that lives in Don Juan is inseparable from the inhuman.

Don Juan is a knight, ready to stand up for his personal dignity, honor, freedom, feelings.

However, Don Juan treats his beloved as a means to quench his thirsty soul. Its goal - the assertion of oneself through sensual pleasures, is devoid of an ethical principle.

Don Juan falls not from the hand of Don Alvar, but from the right hand of fate itself, which punishes those who have transgressed human laws. The statue of the commander represents not only the old world, but also the highest justice.

In Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet, the highest justice is administered by the protagonist himself. Throughout the play, the playwright focuses on Hamlet's central attention. Hamlet reflects the attempts of enemies to penetrate into his plans, rips off the masks from opponents. The king's dastardly headphones are exposed: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Behind their assurances of friendship, the prince discovers lies and hypocrisy. He becomes more and more convinced of the depravity reigning around:

Yes sir. To be honest - in our times means to be the only one out of ten thousand.

These words are pronounced by Hamlet in a conversation with Polonius.

In the famous monologue "To be or not to be" (in the first scene of the third act), all the deepening doubts and reflections of Hamlet are revealed with particular force, and at the same time, his attitude to his "age" is expressed. He sees the monstrous injustice and evil reigning in society:

who would bear the humiliation of the century,

The untruth of the oppressor, the nobles

Arrogance, rejected feeling,

A slow judgment and more than anything

The mockery of the unworthy over the worthy

But the prince at the same time feels that his beautiful determination to confront the evil of the world "fails under the touch of a pale thought." And this unresolved fundamental questions of being and the impossibility of resolving them by his solitary struggle lead him to a painful split. The immediate task - to kill Claudius - seems to fade, step aside before more important and broad life issues, and Hamlet hesitates to take revenge.

One of the most intense moments of the tragedy is the scene of Hamlet's conversation with his mother. Thinking that the king is eavesdropping behind the carpet, Hamlet pierces Polonius hiding there with his sword.

The atmosphere in the castle is becoming more and more tense, the action is moving faster and faster towards the denouement. The death of Polonius at the hands of Hamlet entails the madness and death of Ophelia.

The last (fifth) act of the tragedy opens with a scene in a cemetery. Again, the contrasts of the sublime and the base, the tragic and the funny, so characteristic of Shakespeare: the jokes and cheerful songs of the gravediggers, accustomed to their craft, indifferently throwing skulls out of the ground, and then - the gloomy thoughts of Hamlet.

The same contrasts of tragedy and irony can be seen in one of Pushkin's Little Tragedies.

The problems of the meaning of life, personal dignity and honor, the responsibility of a person in the face of formidable and tragic necessity were posed in the tragedy "A Feast in the Time of Plague".

The situation in it is deliberately conditional. Plague is a natural disaster that threatens people's lives. People can neither fight it nor save themselves from it. They don't fight and they don't save. They are doomed and they know they will die.

Socio-historical examples recede into the background in tragedy. The point is not in them, but in how people behave in tragic circumstances, what they oppose to the fear of death. Will base, cruel instincts emerge, will they panic, will they humbly bow their heads, or will they meet the “high hour of loneliness” courageously and simply?

The characters of the tragedy, with the exception of the Priest, arrange a feast during the plague. People close to them are dying, a cart with corpses is passing by, and they are feasting.

The tragic situation is set from the very beginning, but its outcome is far from a foregone conclusion.

Unlike other tragedies, in A Feast in the Time of Plague, the external dramatic action is even more weakened. The characters utter monologues, sing songs, engage in dialogue, but do not perform any actions that can change the situation. Drama is transferred to the motives of their behavior.

And here it turns out that the reasons that brought the participants to the feast are profoundly different. A feast for a Young Man is a means of oblivion. Louise came to the feast out of fear of loneliness. Only Mary and Valsingam find the strength to confront the raging elements.

Only Walsingam is aware of the severity of the situation and boldly defies death. In the solemnly tragic anthem of the Chairman, a person opposes death and danger with his will. The more formidable the blows of fate, the more violent the resistance to it. Not death glorifies Pushkin in the guise of Winter and Plague, but the ability and readiness of a person to confront. The call to the blind elements brings a person enjoyment of his power and puts him on a par with them.

A person, as it were, overcomes his earthly existence and enjoys his power:

There is rapture in battle

And the dark abyss on the edge,

And in the angry ocean

Amid the stormy waves and stormy darkness,

And in the Arabian hurricane

And in the breath of the Plague.

The "mortal heart" in fatal moments of danger acquires "immortality, perhaps a pledge." The song of Walsingama is a hymn of a fearless person, a glorification of the heroism of a lonely person.

At the same time, Pushkin put the hymn into the mouth of the "fallen spirit." Like Mary, the Chairman repents of arranging a blasphemous feast (“Oh, if only this spectacle could be hidden from the eyes of the immortals!”). Walsingam is far from the winner, as he appeared in the anthem. His mind is defeated. No wonder he sings: "Let's drown our minds merrily," and then returns to the same thought in response to the Priest:

I am kept here

Despair, a terrible memory,

Consciousness of my iniquity,

And the horror of that dead emptiness,

Which I meet in my house -

And the news of these crazy fun,

And the blessed poison of this cup,

And caresses (forgive me, Lord) -

Deceased but sweet creature

The priest bows his head before the grief of the chairman, but appeals to his conscience. There is a simple and wise truth in his words. The feast breaks the mourning for the dead, "confuses" the "silence of the coffins." It is contrary to custom. The priest, demanding respect for the memory of the departed, seeks to lead the feasting on the path of religious humility, partly repeating Mary's song:

Stop the monstrous feast when

Do you wish to meet in heaven

Lost beloved souls.

He insists on respecting traditional moral norms:

Go to your homes!

And although the Priest does not achieve success with his sermon and incantations, Valsingam nevertheless recognizes his "lawlessness". There is something in the very behavior of the Priest that makes the Chairman think.

Singing the heroism of loneliness, contempt for death, a dignified death, the Chairman, along with other participants in the feast, fenced himself off from the common people's misfortune, while the Priest, not caring about himself, strengthens the spirit of the dying. He is among them.

However, the position of the Priest does not negate the high personal heroism of Valsingam. The priest goes to people in the name of saving their souls, calming their conscience, in order to alleviate suffering in heaven. Walsingam, on the other hand, glorifies the spiritual courage of an earthly person who does not want to humbly face death and does not need extraneous encouragement, finding strength in himself. The personal heroism of the Chairman, therefore, is directed at himself and those who are feasting, and the Priest understands the feat and the meaning of human life as an unaccountable service to the people in days of disaster. Walsingam defends the inner possibilities of man. The priest relies on fidelity to customs. The tragedy lies in the fact that the heroism of the Chairman is devoid of sacrifice for the sake of people, and the humane selflessness of the Priest denies the personal spiritual courage of ordinary mortals and therefore replaces it with the preaching of humility and the authority of religion.

Pushkin understood that overcoming this contradiction was impossible in his contemporary conditions, but that such a task was put forward by the very course of history. Pushkin did not know when and in what form humanity would achieve the unity of personal aspirations and common interests, but he trusted the flow of life and left this contradiction unresolved. He also relied on the power of the human mind, therefore, like many works of the 30s, "A Feast in the Time of Plague" is turned to the future.

The remark concluding "A Feast in the Time of the Plague" - "The Chairman remains immersed in deep thought" - clarifies the meaning of Pushkin's tragedy. Valsingam's deep thoughtfulness is both a consciousness of spiritual instability and loss, and reflection on one's own behavior, and reflection on how to overcome the gap between self-enclosed heroism and courageous self-giving to humanity.

The chairman no longer participates in the feast, but his mind is awakened.

In the open ending of the last play, which closes the cycle, Pushkin appeals to a bright consciousness, to its triumph, to the moral responsibility of people to themselves and the world.

Pushkin's "Little Tragedies" captured deep moral, psychological, philosophical, socio-historical shifts in the difficult path of mankind. The heroes of the "Little Tragedies", with the exception of the brilliant Mozart, are defeated, becoming victims of the temptations, temptations of the age and their passions. As a monument to the life-giving power of art, the inspired Mozart rises among them, whose life-loving spirituality is akin to his great sculptor.

In W. Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet", in the entire system of images of heroes, and especially in the image of Hamlet himself, the crisis that was experienced by the progressive humanistic thought of England at the beginning of the 17th century found expression. Shakespeare put many of his cherished thoughts and feelings into the mouth of Hamlet, but at the same time, the author cannot be identified with his hero. Showing the disappointment and despair of Hamlet, Shakespeare himself is far from hopeless pessimism. He understands the difficulties of fighting evil in the present, and yet he believes in the future, that someday liberation from the fetters of lies and oppression of man by man will come. Let at the cost of bloody sacrifices, but truth and justice must win - this is the meaning of the denouement of the tragedy.

In the image of the protagonist of Hamlet, we see a humanist of the Renaissance, the bearer of the advanced ideals of his time. But his faith in life and man, his best dreams perish when he comes close to the world-prison, where "jesters on the throne" rampage, where liars, low worshipers and murderers who put on a mask of complacency flourish. The tragedy of the death of lofty illusions, internal discord caused by a sense of hopelessness of the lonely struggle for the correction of society, and at the same time the ever-deepening exposure of lies and injustice, the growing protest - all this constitutes the pathos of the Hamlet tragedy, its ideological core.

We can safely say that this man changed the world, mentality, perception, attitude towards art as such. William Shakespeare, whose works are studied in the school curriculum, was a real genius. His plays and poems can be called a true encyclopedia of human relationships, a kind of mirror of life, a reflector of the shortcomings and strengths of human beings.

great genius

Shakespeare's works are an impressive contribution to world literature. During his life, the great Briton created seventeen comedies, eleven tragedies, a dozen chronicles, five poems and one hundred and fifty-four sonnets. It is interesting that their subjects, the problems described in them, are relevant to this day. Even many researchers of the playwright's work cannot answer how in the sixteenth century a person could create works that excite all generations. It was even hypothesized that the works were written not by one person, but by a certain group of authors, but under one pseudonym. But the truth has not yet been established.

short biography

Shakespeare, whose works are so loved by many, left many mysteries behind him and very few historical facts. It is believed that he was born near Birmingham, in the city of Stratford-upon-Avon, in 1564. His father was engaged in trade and was a wealthy citizen. But the issues of literature and culture were not discussed with little William: at that time there was no environment in the city that would be conducive to the development of talent.

The boy went to a free school, at the age of eighteen he married (forcedly) a rich girl, she was eight years older than him. Apparently, Shakespeare did not like family life, so he joined a wandering group of artists and left for London. But he was not lucky to become an actor, so he wrote poems in honor of influential people, served the horses of wealthy theater visitors, worked as a prompter, and finished writing plays. Shakespeare's first works appeared when he was 25 years old. Then he wrote more and more. They were delivered and were successful. In 1599, at the expense of the artists of the group, including Shakespeare, the famous Globe Theater was built. In it, the playwright worked tirelessly.

Features of the works

Shakespeare's works even then differed from traditional dramas and comedies. Their hallmark was deep content, the presence of intrigue that changes people. William showed how low even a noble person can fall under the influence of circumstances and, conversely, how notorious villains perform great deeds. The playwright forced his characters to reveal their character gradually, as the plot developed, and the audience to empathize with the characters, to follow the scene. Shakespeare's works are also characterized by high moral pathos.

It is not surprising that the genius of dramaturgy already during his lifetime deprived the income of many authors, since the public demanded precisely his work. And he met the requirements of demand - he wrote new plays, replayed ancient stories, used historical chronicles. Success gave William prosperity, and even the coat of arms of the nobility. He died, as is commonly believed, after a cheerful feast in honor of his birthday in a friendly circle.

Works of Shakespeare (list)

We cannot list all the works of the greatest English playwright in this article. But let's point out the most famous works of Shakespeare. The list is as follows:

• "Romeo and Juliet".
• "Hamlet".
• "Macbeth".
• "A dream in a summer night".
• "Othello".
• "King Lear".
• "The Merchant of Venice".
• "Much ado about nothing".
• "Storm".
• "Two Verona".

These plays can be found in the repertoire of any self-respecting theater. And, of course, to paraphrase the famous saying, we can say that the actor who does not dream of playing Hamlet is bad, the actress who does not want to play Juliet is bad.

To be or not to be?

Shakespeare's work "Hamlet" is one of the brightest, most penetrating. The image of the Danish prince excites to the depths of the soul, and his eternal question makes you think about your life. For those who have not yet read the tragedy in the full version, we will tell a summary. The play begins with the appearance of a ghost in the kings. He meets with Hamlet and tells him that the king did not die a natural death. It turns out that the father's soul demands revenge - the murderer Claudius not only took the wife of the late king, but also the throne. Wanting to verify the veracity of the words of night vision, the prince pretends to be a madman and invites wandering artists to the palace to stage the tragedy. Claudius' reaction gave him away, and Hamlet decides to take revenge. Palace intrigues, betrayal of his beloved and former friends make an avenger prince without a heart. He kills several of them in defense of himself, but is killed by the sword of the deceased Ophelia's brother. In the end, everyone dies: both Claudius, who untruthfully took the throne, and the mother, who drank the wine poisoned by her husband, prepared for Hamlet, and the prince himself, and his opponent Laertes. Shakespeare, whose works move to tears, described the problem not only in Denmark. But the whole world, the hereditary monarchy in particular.

Tragedy of two lovers

Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" is a touching story about two young people who are ready to sacrifice themselves to be with their chosen one. This is a story about warring families who did not allow their children to be together, to be happy. But the children of the warring nobles do not care about the established rules, they decide to be together. Their meetings are filled with tenderness and deep feelings. But the bridegroom was found for the girl, and her parents tell her to prepare for the wedding. Juliet's brother is killed in a street fight between representatives of two warring families, and Romeo is considered the killer. The ruler wants to send the criminal out of the city. The young people are helped by a monk and a nurse, but they have not fully discussed all the details of the escape. As a result, Juliet drinks a potion, from which she falls into Romeo, but considers her beloved dead and drinks poison in her crypt. After awakening, the girl kills herself with the guy's dagger. The Montagues and the Capulets reconcile, mourning their children.

Other jobs

But William Shakespeare wrote works and others. These are funny comedies that are uplifting, light and lively. They tell about people, although famous, but those who are not alien to love, passion, striving for life. Wordplay, misunderstandings, happy accidents lead the characters to a happy ending. If sadness is present in the plays, then it is fleeting, such as to emphasize the cheerful turmoil on the stage.

The sonnets of the great genius are also original, filled with deep thoughts, feelings, experiences. In verse, the author turns to a friend, beloved, mourns in separation and rejoices at a meeting, is disappointed. A special melodic language, symbols and images create an elusive picture. Interestingly, in most of the sonnets, Shakespeare refers to a man, perhaps Henry Risley, Earl of Southampton, the playwright's patron. And only then, in later works, does a swarthy lady, a cruel coquette, appear.

Instead of an afterword

Each person is simply obliged to read at least in translation, but the full content of the most famous works of Shakespeare, to make sure that the greatest genius had the ability of a prophet, because he was able to identify the problems of even modern society. He was a researcher of human souls, noticed their shortcomings and advantages, and pushed for changes. And isn't that the purpose of art and the great master?

Composition

The heyday of English drama began in the late 1580s, when a galaxy of writers appeared, now called "university minds": Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), Thomas Kyd (1558-1594), Robert Greene (c. 1560-1592), John Lily (c. 1554-1606) and several others. The milestones marking the beginning of this heyday were two tragedies - “Tamerlane the Great” (1587) by K. Marlo and “Spanish Tragedy” by T. Kdda (c. 1587). The first marked the beginning of the bloody drama, the second - the genre of revenge tragedies.

There is every reason to believe that Shakespeare began his dramatic work c. 1590. In the first period of his work, he created a number of bloody historical dramas - the trilogy "Henry VI" and "Richard III" and the tragedy of revenge "Titus Andronicus". Shakespeare's first comedies, The Comedy of Errors and The Taming of the Shrew, were notable for their rather crude comedy, close to farces.

In 1593-1594, there was a turning point. Although Shakespeare never abandoned farce and clowning, in general his new comedies The Two Veronas, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It, Twelfth Night , "The Merry Wives of Windsor" are distinguished by subtle humor. They are dominated by adventurous and adventurous motives and dominated by the theme of love.

Most of the historical plays of this period are colored by faith in the triumph of the best beginnings in public life, which is especially noticeable in three chronicle plays - "Henry IV" (two parts) and "Henry V". Although in them a dramatic struggle between the feudal lords is an indispensable element of action, a fair amount of humor is noteworthy in them. It is in "Henry IV" that the image of Falstaff appears - a masterpiece of Shakespeare's comedy.

The only tragedy of this period, which lasts until the end of the 16th century, is Romeo and Juliet (1595). Its action is imbued with deep lyricism, and even the death of young heroes does not make this tragedy hopeless. Although Romeo and Juliet die, reconciliation of the warring families of Montagues and Capulets takes place over their corpses, love wins a moral victory over the world of evil.

The tragedy "Romeo and Juliet" embodies Shakespeare's optimistic mood in the second period. In comedies and the only tragedy of these years, humanity triumphs over the bad beginnings of life.

At the turn of the 16th-17th centuries, a new turning point took place in Shakespeare's mindset. The first signs of it are felt in the historical tragedy "Julius Caesar" (1599). Her true hero, however, is not a great commander, but another Roman figure - Brutus, the sworn enemy of tyranny. He joins a conspiracy against Caesar, striving for sole despotic power, and participates in his assassination. Adherents of Caesar, and first of all Mark Antony, deceive the people with demagogic speeches, the Romans expel Brutus. The noble hero is defeated and commits suicide. Victory goes to the supporters of tyranny. The tragedy is that the people (namely, they play a decisive role in this tragedy) have not matured to understand who are their true and who are imaginary friends. Historical conditions have developed unfavorably for those who wished to establish noble ideals in life, and this is expressed in Julius Caesar.

Like other representatives of the new worldview, Shakespeare believed that the best beginnings should triumph over evil. However, he and his generation had to make sure that life went a different way. For three centuries European humanism has developed, preaching the need to reorganize life on new, more human principles. It is time to see the consequences of this. Instead, the negative traits of bourgeois development became more and more apparent in all aspects of life. The all-destroying power of gold was added to the remnants of the previous feudal-monarchical injustices.

Shakespeare felt with all his heart that humanistic ideals could not be realized in life. This is expressed in Sonnet 66. Although his translations by S. Marshak and V. Pasternak are more famous, I give another version:

* I call death, I can’t look anymore,
* How a worthy husband dies in poverty,
* And the villain lives in beauty and hall;
* How the trust of pure souls tramples,
* As chastity is threatened with disgrace,
* How honors are given to scoundrels,
* How strength droops before the insolent gaze,
* As everywhere in life the rogue triumphs,
* How arbitrariness mocks art,
* How thoughtlessness rules the mind,
* How painfully languishes in the clutches of evil
* All that we call good.
* If not for you, my love, I would have long ago
* I was looking for rest under the shadow of the coffin.
* Translation by O. Rumer

The sonnet was probably written in the late 1590s, when the turning point in Shakespeare's mentality began, leading to the creation of the tragedy Hamlet. It was created, apparently, in 1600-1601. Already in 1603 the first edition of the tragedy appeared. It was released without the permission of the author and the theater in which the play was being played, and was called the quarto of 1603.