Firstly, how "abominable" any Shakespeare play is...even his worst works still have their moments, still have their lines...and
Trolius and Cressida and
Timon of Athens aren't all that bad, FAR below his standard, but I think they actually suffer for that fact, if they were written by another writer of the period we might appreciate what they do well more (and they certainly do have aspects which are very good, the more modern relationship between Trolius and Cressida and the possible rejection of ascetisicm by Timon are both themes which seem far more modern and are written of more today, hence their negative reception in Shakespeare's day) instead of suffering against seemingly-unfair comparison with the "big boys" of the Bard,
Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet King Lear, Othello, Richard III, and Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, besides which are all the comedies,
The Merchant of Venice, which sort of straddles the line between the two categories,
Coroilanus, which T.S. Eliot famously described as not only far better than
Hamlet but perhaps Shakespeare's finest play, and
Titus Andronicus, which has always been looked down upon by scholars as being the worst or near-worst of Shakespeare's works, but I believe it to be VASTLY underrated and underappreciated, it really is a Shakespearean Sweeney Todd, low on elegance but high on atmosphere, and Julie Taymor's movie version really does it justice, if you've never seen it...simply BRILLIANT.
The Histories together may not measure up cohesively to the Oedipus Cycle, but in terms of having as much aggregate literary worth? Again, even if you wish to throw out the "clunkers," we're left with four plays that rank high, and perhaps it's no coincidence that they themselves are their own cycle, from
Richard III to
Henry V is a great story with overarching themes and characters, the three Henry plays serving as the main body and probably the best coming-of-age tale ever staged with one of if not the greatest comedic character in Falstaff, the changing relation between he and Prince Hal/Henry V really is one of Shakespeare's best pairings, and then
Richard III ALONE is a masterpiece, and in this context serves as perhaps the greatest "prequel" in history.
Maybe the Histories don't measure up to the Oedipus Cycle play-by-paly, but I still think that taken as a whole, or, perhaps more appropriately, the
Richard III-Henry V cycle-within-the-cycle of histories, the aggregate of literary worth matches respectably, if not exactly.
But I cannot pin an argument for Shakespearean Tragedy's supremacy on the Histories...it'd be like arguing the 1980s 49ers dynasty was the best ever in the NFL without making mention of Joe Montana and the West Coast Offense.
So I'll go out on a limb and say that
Hamlet-Macbeth-King Lear is a greater threesome of tragic plays than the Oedipus Cycle in the same way "Madame Butterfly"-"La Boheme"-"Tosca" are a better selection of musical pieces than Beethoven's 9th Symphony--the sum is FAR greater than the parts in the case of Beethoven's work than in Puccini's three, unconnected operas, but on the merits of the parts ALONE Puccini's works are superior, as the parts by themselves may be brilliant, but cannot match the sheer bredth of brilliance exhibitied by one of the operas.
Sophocles' works ARE great, but their connectivty is, in this respect, both a strength and weakness in terms of their merit--apart they are but great, together they are THE Cycle, yes...but that cannot change the fact that they are still caught in the situation of trying to maintain their OWN identity while remaining a PART of a greater whole. Shakespeare's Tragedies, by contrast, may not connect (at least not systematically, thematically it can be argued that they DO, but that's a whole different matter) but are BY THEMSELVES the greatest staged tragedies in history.
To put it into perspective, we receive the full extent of Oedipus' suffering in three doses, three parts--even with the enormity of the traedy in
Oedipus Rex, the tragic fall THERE somehow seems less BY ITSELF than, say, Hamlet, Macbeth, or LEar suffering, as THEY have all of their tragic woes compacted into one enormously-powerful piece, in his ONE PLAY we have more of a sense of what Hamlet's suffering or Macbeth's fall from grace or Lear's tragic condition means, how it feels, than Oedipus, not because Oedipus is an inferior character or Sophocles an inferior playwright, but because Oedipus' true suffering is stylistically stretched out over three plays, so going work-by-work we only recieve a half or a third or what his overall suffering may be, and that third or half is far less than the huge whole that Hamlet gives us in one play.
As a CYCLE, Oedipus may be King--and if THAT'S the argument, then perhaps he should be placed in the "Best Serial" category, for if that is the argument, that the series of his sufferings in the trilogy ammounts to a huge whole, then he should seem to fit there as it then IS a series (and if that's the argument and he is determined to be a Series/Serial/Cycle, then surely he msut be the greatest, THAT is a fact I won't dispute, nor do I think most would, if we view him like this.)
But as a PLAY, as ONE WORK, I'll go on record and say ANY of Shakespeare's "big gun" Tragedies,
Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, Othello, those four (
Romeo and Juliet is famous but cannot hold a candle to Oedipus, the same applies to
Antony and Cleopatra,
Coriolanus just is not as relatable as Oedipus, as much as TS. Eliot adores him and that play,
Richard III in this line of reasoning should seem committed to a cycle of its own, and so to seperate it would be to commit the same fallacy, and Richard III as a character and play ALONE is not as good as Oedipus, and
Julius Caesar is a great work but neither Casear nor Marc Antony is strong enough to beat out Oedipus) are all superior to ANY of the plays in the Oedipus Cycle BY THEMSELVES, in a play-to-play analysis.
I'll finally make two last assessments (because I'm already so far in I might as well) and name Iago from
Othello The Best Antagonist of All-Time, certainly for the stage, and even in works of literature, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a more worthy candidate...Lucifer from
Paradise Lost, perhaps, but other than those two...
And I'll finally posit that The Best Dialogue/Monologue Line of All-Time should be awarded to...what else?
"To be or not to be, that is the question..." from
Hamlet, for not only having what is INDISPUTABLY the most quoted and known line of literature in the West this side of "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" but for the utter brilliance and perfection of that monologue.
I don't use that term lightly or often in discussing literature, but I honestly think that's about as perfect a monologue, as good a selection of text you can put togetether as potentially possible, I do not see any way at the moment to top that, do not see any flaws with any of the lines, they're all brilliant, all work, it's a tour de force, a total examination of the human condition--in one monologue, and with SO MANY lines that are not only poignant but also so popular they're part of our cultural awareness as peoples in the West.
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."
"The Undiscovered Country..."
"To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or To take arms against a sea of troubles..."
"To die, perchance to dream, aye, there's the rub..."
And, the line I will unashamedly and forever defend as being The Human Experience Captured In One Line,
"To be or not to be, that is the question."
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by JCamilo
