Shakespeare is one of the most analysed and “criticised” poet in the history
of literature. Why Shakespeare? The answer is easy. He is not only most
analysed but also the most popular dramatist that has ever existed.
Shakespeare’s drama has been fascinating his audience and readers through the
centuries. The plots of Shakespeare’s drama seem to be simple, dealing with
human and social themes like love, marriage, murder, intrigue, complot and
revenge. On a first sight, they remember us of a good and entertaining
Hollywood Film. But is this all what Shakespeare has to say through his
drama? Did he really intend to write commercial plays, without giving a deeper
sense to his literary work? I don’t think so. I think Shakespeare achieved
through his “simple” plots to get deeply into the minds and souls of his
audience, in order to make them conceive the complexity of their own lives and
feelings. I do not intend to find out his personal message in the drama or to
interpret his intentions. I will rather concentrate on his work and try to find out,
what kind of message Shakespeare’s comedy transmitted to his audience and
above all to his experienced readers, better said, to his literary critics. My paper
shall reveal the complexity and the deep psychological meaning of
Shakespeare’s comedy. Returning to my first question why Shakespeare? I
would like to answer it, by quoting one of my favourite critics, Northrop Frye:
“For all that has been written about it, Shakespearean comedy still seams to me widely misunderstood and underestimated, and my main thesis, that the four romances are the inevitable and genuine culmination of the poet’s achievement, is clearly less obvious to many than it is to me.” 1
I consider Frye’s assumption on Shakespearean comedy the adequate answer to
my question. In this paper I intend to seek the deep sense of A Midsummer
Night’s Dream and The Tempest, by posting them in a mirror of changing critical approaches, beginning with the mythological view, continuing with the
political and new critical perspective and ending with my personal notes. My
main purpose in this paper is to demonstrate that Shakespeare’s comedy does
not only have a delighting function but also exercises a deep psychological
impact on the old and new generations. In my opinion he was not only a genius
of the drama, but also an initiator of the renaissance of mythical and archaic
values in the modern world.
Table of contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Why Shakespeare’s comedy
1.2. Methodology
Chapter 2: Northrop Frye’s – A natural Perspective
2.1. An introduction into Shakespearean Comedy and Romance
Chapter 3: A Midsummer Night’s Dream
3.1. The plot
3.2. The mythological perspective
3.3. The political perspective – an approach of new historical view
3.4. A Midsummer Night’s Dream in a mirror of psychological and psychoanalytic criticism
Chapter 4: The Tempest
4.1. The plot
4.2. Fairytale or myth?
4.3. The postcolonial perspective – The Tempest – a paradigm of colonization?
4.4. The Tempest – an allegory on Shakespeare’s retirement from the theatre?
Chapter 5: New critical approaches on Shakespeare’s comedy
5.1 A short introduction into the Modern Theories of Literature
5.2 New Criticism
5.3 Deconstruction
5.4 New criticism, Deconstruction and Shakespeare
Chapter 6: Personal view
Selected works
1. Introduction
1.1. Why Shakespeare’s comedy?
Shakespeare is one of the most analysed and “criticised” poet in the history of literature. Why Shakespeare? The answer is easy. He is not only most analysed but also the most popular dramatist that has ever existed. Shakespeare’s drama has been fascinating his audience and readers through the centuries. The plots of Shakespeare’s drama seem to be simple, dealing with human and social themes like love, marriage, murder, intrigue, complot and revenge. On a first sight, they remember us of a good and entertaining Hollywood Film. But is this all what Shakespeare has to say through his drama? Did he really intend to write commercial plays, without giving a deeper sense to his literary work? I don’t think so. I think Shakespeare achieved through his “simple” plots to get deeply in
to the minds and souls of his audience, in order to make them conceive the complexity of their own lives and feelings. I do not intend to find out his personal message in the drama or to interpret his intentions. I will rather concentrate on his work and try to find out, what kind of message Shakespeare’s comedy transmitted to his audience and above all to his experienced readers, better said, to his literary critics. My paper shall reveal the complexity and the deep psychological meaning of Shakespeare’s comedy. Returning to my first question why Shakespeare? I would like to answer it, by quoting one of my favourite critics, Northrop Frye:
“For all that has been written about it, Shakespearean comedy still seams to me widely misunderstood and underestimated, and my main thesis, that the four romances are the inevitable and genuine culmination of the poet’s achievement, is clearly less obvious to many than it is to me.”[1]
I consider Frye’s assumption on Shakespearean comedy the adequate answer to my question. In this paper I intend to seek the deep sense of A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Tempest, by posting them in a mirror of changing critical approaches, beginning with the mythological view, continuing with the political and new critical perspective and ending with my personal notes. My main purpose in this paper is to demonstrate that Shakespeare’s comedy does not only have a delighting function but also exercises a deep psychological impact on the old and new generations. In my opinion he was not only a genius of the drama, but also an initiator of the renaissance of mythical and archaic values in the modern world. Through his work he gave us a possible definition of being human and convinced us about the universal complexity of the mankind.
1.2 Methodology
After the short introduction concerning the reason for my desire analyzing Shakespearean comedy, I would now like to continue explaining the methods I will use in my paper. First of all I will give an introduction into the Shakespeare’s comedy world. This introduction will be based on Northrop Frye’s study on “the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance” in his book A natural perspective[2]. While introducing Shakespeare’s comedy and romance I will also introduce some of the critical principals, Northrop Frye refers to in the book mentioned above and of course those one that I am going to apply in my paper. Further on I will deal with the first comedy I have chosen, A Midsummer Night’s Dream considering on the one hand the mythological perspective and on the other hand the political and last but not least the psychoanalytical approach. Moreover I will try to demonstrate that A Midsummer Night’s Dream can also be seen as an allegory of Shakespeare’s early age, maybe as a come back on the stage. My fourth chapter will deal with a second comedy I have selected, The Tempest which seems to be the opposite of the first one by representing an allegory of Shakespeare’s retire from the stage. There are a lot of interpretations of The Tempest; some critics describe The Tempest as a paradigm of colonization, other just as a nice fairytale. My purpose will be to analyze all the mentioned theories and to find my own interpretation. My way to approach The Tempest is a psychological one. In my opinion Shakespeare’s tempest represents his own life, his passion and love for the theatre and his dedication to his work. His “tempest” ceased together with his retire from the wonderful fairy island, he describes in the romantic comedy with the same name. This theory I support will be found in the sixth chapter of this paper, which shall contain my personal notes on the selected comedies. Before revealing my own interpretation, I will accord my attention in chapter five to the new critical approaches on Shakespeare. The modern theories I will try to apply on Shakespearean comedy are New Criticism, Deconstruction, New Historicism and Cultural materialism. By mentioning “I will try to apply these theories” I mean that some of the new critical approaches cannot be applied on Shakespeare’s work, for an approach of Shakespeare’s texts without the implication of the author cannot be accepted. According to my theory, Shakespeare’s work cannot be approached without considering Shakespeare’s perceptible personality in all his dramatic work. This would be the case of trying to apply Deconstruction on Shakespeare. I will use the last chapter of this paper in order to reveal my own perspective on Shakespeare and the two selected comedies. My interpretation will try to combine the applied literary theories, the psychological and religious aspects of the plays as well as discovering a new perspective, namely the merge of generations reading Shakespeare by getting the old and the new ones together. Shakespeare uses in his work both archaic and modern elements and achieves through this perfect combination the highest level of a career as a dramatist. Reading Shakespeare it’s like discovering the complexity of the universe, with all its wonderful and terrible experiences.
2. Northrop Frye’s – A natural Perspective
2.1. An introduction into Shakespearean Comedy and Romance
As mentioned above, I will dedicate this chapter to one of my favourite critics, Northrop Frye, dealing with the critical principals he points out on Shakespearian comedy in his book A natural Perspective[3].
But before speaking about the critical principles Northrop Frye deals with, I would like to give a short definition of criticism, in order to emphasize the importance of critical reading and the influence of the critical principles on the different ways of understanding literature.
M. H. Abrams describes “criticism” as “the overall term for studies concerned with defining, classifying, analyzing, interpreting and evaluating works of literature”[4].
As we see the first step in applying criticism is defining the literary work. Concerning Shakespearian Comedy and Romance, Northrop Frye describes the comedies as an apart world:
“Each play of Shakespeare is a world in itself, so complete and satisfying a world that is easy, delightful and profitable to get lost in it.”[5]
Frye continuous describing the comedies as “a single group unified by recurring images and structural devices”. Moreover he asserts that the comedies “seem more like a number of simultaneous chase games played by a master who wins them all by devices familiar to him, and gradually, with patient study, to us, but which remain mysteries of an unfathomable skill”[6]. According to Northrop Frye’s definition on Shakespearian comedy, I think he approaches it in a romantic and imperialistic way. He doesn’t consider Shakespeare’s work “an achieved unity of meanings”[7] like the New Critics would do, neither “a galaxy of signifiers”[8] such as in a deconstructive way. Shakespeare’s comedy represents a world of its own, a world that lives and breathes, a world full of feelings and sentimentalism.
Getting from defining to classifying Shakespearian comedy, we will see that there are several ways achieving it. Northrop Frye uses dichotomy in order to classify the comedy, focusing on some “oversimplified” statements as differentiating Platonists from Aristotelians, girls from boys, liberals from conservatives and in the same way Iliad critics from Odyssey critics. He explains the last dichotomy asserting that: “interest in literature tends to center either in the area of tragedy, realism and irony or in the area of comedy and romance”[9]. With other words the Iliad critics tend to concern with tragedy and Odyssey critics with comedy and romance.
Based on the same kind of dichotomy Frye distinguishes two types of literature. His distinction implies two traditional functions of literature: “to delight and to instruct”. In this sense Frye makes a distinction between a kind of literature represented by the kind of detective stories, etc. and on the other hand the instructive literature. A detective story for instance will always be read for the sake of reading, following attentively the plot of the story, being interested in the climax of the story and not necessarily in the stylistic meaning. The reader will accept the convention and will not think about whether the story is plausible or not. He is only interested in “what’s going to happen in the story”. This kind of literature has the function to delight and to relax the reader.
A first critical principle Northrop Frye notices is that “the most obviously conventionalized fictions are the easiest to read.”[10] A second critical principle mentioned by Frye is that “if the general shape and structure of the story is prescribed in advance, then the literary merits of the story, the wit in the dialogue, the liveliness of the characterization, and the like, are a technical tour de force”[11]. What he means is that those literary merits of the story “illustrate the author’s rhetorical skill in working within his conventions”[12].
The literary critics may reject the convention, Frye assumes, by considering all the individual works belonging to it being all alike. They prefer another type of literature, namely the instructive literature, near to reality, which offers them the possibility to analyse and interpret it through their own precritical experience and to find answers to their fundamental questions toward the reality of life.
Concerning the difference made by the “distinction of critics in approaching Shakespeare”, Northrop Frye notes that “the critic interested primarily in tragedy, irony and realism would probably, in Shakespeare’s own day, have considered Ben Jonson a more serious, at any rate in comedy”[13]. Jonson’s comedies, “if not realistic plays, still maintain a fairly consistent illusion”[14], assumes Frye comparing them to Shakespeare’s comedies and romances. Shakespeare never fails to include something incredible in the story, like fairies, magical forests, etc. Shakespeare’s comedies and romances represent a world of mythical elements which make us forget the objective reality for a moment, but in the meantime bringing us back to our sentimental roots, awaking in us our subjective reality, our feelings and our emotional experience. The fairy world and the magical forests may have been used by Shakespeare not only to create a magic world but also to emphasize the eternal reality of being human, with our entire positive and negative life experiences, for the emotional part has been forgotten or suppressed by the cruel every day life.
The Iliad critics will see the height of Shakespearean achievement in the great tragedies and feel, like Frye assumes, “that the romances of the final period represent an exhaustion of vitality or a subsiding into more facile and commercial formulas”[15]. Frye considers himself an Odyssey critic and sees in the Shakespeare’s late romance, his “genuine culmination”. He compares Shakespeare’s romances to Bach’s The Art of Fugue and The Musical Offering, describing them as “not retreats into pedantry, but final articulation of craftsmanship”[16].
Getting back to the Abrams’ definition of criticism, we have already defined and classified Shakespearian comedy and romance. The next step according to Abram will be to analyse the selected work. Analysing a work of literature means to define its structure and to determine its conventions. The word “structure” seems to be a key word within criticism. The word “structure” is, according to Northrop Frye, “a metaphor from architecture”, which “has become applied to literary criticism partly as the result of a curious phenomenon in criticism itself”[17]. Frye argues that the arts of poetry and music move in time. In the same way the reader of a novel or a spectator of a play is also following a movement in time. Frye distinguishes here between the practice of “proper” criticism and “the direct experience of literature which precedes it”[18]. The direct experience of literature represents the first key to understanding a literary work without paying attention to its structure and conventions. A deeper Form of understanding literature is practicing the “proper” criticism mentioned above, not only experiencing literature but also defining, classifying, analysing, interpreting and evaluating it. Although the direct experience of literature has a precritical function according to Fryes opinion, “works of literature differ in the extent to which they subordinate the critical faculty during the experience of reading or listening”, so that in comedy and romance “direct experience is not only precritical but as uncritical as possible”[19]. What he means is that the Iliad critic is closer to critical activity during his direct experience than the Odyssey critic. The first mentioned sees the literary work as a reflection of real life and his theory is based on plausibility. The Odyssey critic concentrates more on the likelihood of the work, which remains in the minds of the reader or spectator, accepting the given truth in the story and without examining its plausibility.
Considering Shakespeare’s comedy and romance, I have asked myself if we are also compelled to accept his conventions totally, without asking questions about the plausibility of the plot. According to Frye’s theory, Shakespeare “does not ask his audience to accept an illusion: he asks them to listen to the story”[20]. In the same time he does not allow his audience to “raise questions ... about the plausibility of the incident or their correspondence with their habitual way of life”[21]. But even if we weren’t compelled to accept his conventions, we would do it nevertheless, because Shakespeare takes us through his plays into a mystery world, “close to the oral tradition, with its shifting and kaleidoscopic variants, its migrating themes and motifs, its tolerance of interpolation, its detachment from the printed ideal of an established text”[22].
In conclusion we can notice that Shakespearian Comedy and Romance admittedly has the structure of a “detective story”, but it can not be considered commercial and without critical value. Its critical function in this sense is not only to delight but also to instruct. In this way Shakespeare’s genius consist in his achievement of getting the two fundamental critical functions together: delighting and fascinating his audience on the one hand and criticising and instructing them by self-reflection on the other.
3. A Midsummer Night’s Dream
3.1. The plot
The first comedy I have chosen was probably written in or before 1598 and represents one of Shakespeare’s early comedies. A certain date of its apparition is not known. What we know is that Shakespeare wrote A Midsummer Night’s Dream after his return to the theatre. According to Suerbaum’s “Der Shakespeare Führer”[23] there was a break in his biography from 1585 until about 1592. Nobody really knows, if Shakespeare used this time to perfect his theatrical and dramatic technique or if he only dedicated the 7 years to his family. Anyway there is no literary activity to see in the mentioned time. What we also know is that the play has been written after Romeo and Julia.
The plot in A Midsummer Night’s Dream seems to be as simple and undemanding as possible. The play begins with the announcement of Theseus’ and Hippolyta’s wedding, and the whole action concentrates on the ceremony of wedding and on the love relationships between two sets of couples: Hermia and Lysander, and Helena and Demetrius; Theseus and Hippolyta, and Oberon and Titania. Hermia loves Lysander and wants to escape Athens with him in order to marry him in the house of his aunt who lives outside the city, because her father, Egeus wants her to merry Demetrius, who also loves her but whom she doesn’t love. Demetrius, at his turn is loved by Helena, whom he despises. By escaping Athens the couple in love is followed by Demetrius, who mad of jealousy wants to get Hermia back and, of course by Helena, who only follows Demetrius, trying to persuade him to marry her and not Hermia. During the following act both couples enter a wood, situated outside Athens and which houses at that time a fairy couple, Oberon and his wife Titania, who has come to bless the wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta. Through the presence of the fairies, the whole wood has been transformed in a magic world. The climax of the story consists in the confusion created by Puck, who wanting to help Helena, getting Demetrius fall in love with her, makes a terrible mistake and spreads the juice of the magic love flower on Lysander’s eyelids instead on Demetrius’. What then happens is obvious. Lysander sees Helena and is immediately falling in love with her, forgetting his entire love for Hermia, who wakes up and doesn’t understand anything of what happens. The confusion continuous, when Puck, seeing what he has done, tries to repair his mistake, and makes also Demetrius fall in love with Helena. Now we have the partially reversed situation of “who loves whom”. The two men, who once loved Hermia, love now Helena. What I mean with “partially reversed” is that we have in fact the same situation, concerning the love of two men for one woman; only the female character changes, and not the entire situation. The confusion ends with Puck’s accomplishment to turn Lysander’s love back to Hermia. The play’s “happy end” consists in Theseus’ acceptance of the two couples’ love and marriage and, at the same time, his invitation to celebrate their wedding ceremony together with his and Hippolyta’s. Another aspect of the plot reveals on the one hand the love relationship between Theseus, the duke of Athens and Hippolyta, the queen of the amazons, who are to get married as a result of his conquest over the amazons and on the other hand, the relationship between Oberon, the king of the fairies and Titania, their queen. The last mentioned couple settled down in the wood to participate at Theseus and Hippolyta’s wedding. Although they are here for a noble reason, Oberon and Titania quarrel the whole time and unbalance the nature. A last group of participators in the play is a group of craftsmen, who perform after the wedding ceremony a hilarious version of the story of Pyramus and Tsibe. The performed play is actually a tragedy, which tells the love story of two young people, Pyramus and Tsibe, who fall in love with each other but can’t accomplish their dream of marriage, because of their parents, who forbid them the marriage. In spite of the parent’s ban, the lovers plan to escape one night and to meet outside the fatherly houses. Tsibe arrives first at the meeting point and being threatened by a lioness she runs away and drops her veil. The lioness, seeing the veil on the ground, tosses and rents it with her bloody mouth, so that as Pyramus appears and sees it, he thinks that his beloved Tsibe has been eaten by the lioness, and commits suicide, in order to share his fate with her. Tsibe comes back, finds the dead Pyramus and follows him in death. There is nothing comic in the performed play, but the audience is rather interested in the performance act than in the plot of the play. Eventually, when the performance is completed, the lovers go to bed, the fairies fulfil their mission blessing the sleeping couples and disappear. The silence sets about Athens and “only Puck remains, to ask the audience for its forgiveness and approval and to urge it to remember the play as though it had all been a dream”[24].
3.2. The mythological perspective
As mentioned in my introduction, I will first pay attention to the mythological perspective in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. But first of all I will offer a short introduction into mythology.
According to M. H. Abrams “in classical Greek, ‘mythos’ signified any story or plot, whether true or invented. In its central modern significance, however, a myth is one story in a mythology – a system of hereditary stories which were once believed to be true by a particular cultural group, and which served to explain (in terms of the intentions and actions of deities and other supernatural beings) why the world is as it is and things happen as they do, to provide a rationale for social customs and observances, and to establish the sanctions for the rules, by which people conduct their lives.”[25] Abrams continuous explaining that most myths are related to social rituals, a theory, which anthropologists disagreed with. Further on Abrams compares mythology to “a religion in which we no longer believe”[26]. However, according to “a number of modern writers ... an integrative mythology, whether inherited or invented, is essential to literature”[27]. Its essential function in literature and literary criticism will be discovered by the myth critics, such as Robert Graves, Francis Fergusson, Richard Chase and the most influential Northrop Frye, who “view the genres and individual plot-patterns of many works of literature, including what on the surface are highly sophisticated and realistic works, as recurrences of basic mythic formulas”[28]. According to Frye’s theory “the typical forms of myth become the conventions and genres of literature.” In his theory Frye distinguishes “four main narrative genres – comedy, romance, tragedy, and satire – and these are ‘displaced’ modes of the four elemental forms of myth that are associated with the seasonal cycle of spring, summer, autumn, and winter”[29].
In A Natural Perspective Northrop Frye speaks about the stylized and artificial literature as being most conventionalized and the easiest to read, considering this the first critical principle involved in it. That means, that if Shakespeare’s comedies belong to the high stylized and artificial types of literature, and the literary conventions have their roots in “the typical forms of myth”, then the literary structure, Shakespeare’s comedies base on is a mythological structure. The word structure plays here a very important role. Frye distinguishes in his theory on Shakespeare’s comedies between structure and mood, asserting that “structure as a whole cannot act kinetically ... it does not act on people: it pulls people into it”, during “mood, on the other hand, does tend to act kinetically, to suggest or act as the sign for an emotion which the hearer provides”[30]. So tragedy and comedy are the names of a structure, yet the predominating mood tells us, if we have to do with a comedy or a tragedy, such as the festive mood in the comedy and the sombre mood in the tragedy. Concerning the word “structure”, Frye defines it as “the unity which balances a variety of moods, conflicting with and to some degree neutralizing one another”[31].
Turning back to my analysis concerning the mythological perspective in Shakespeare’s early comedy A Midsummer Night’s Dream, I consider that according to Frye’s theory on myth and structure, there are a lot of mythological elements, which can be found in the play. We already know that A Midsummer Night’s Dream has a mythological structure because of its high conventionalized character. On the other hand we can also speak about mythological influences concerning the plot and of course the characters of the play or the so-called archetypes. We observe the first analogy to Greek mythology already in the first act, when Theseus, the duke of Athens announces his wedding with Hippolyta, the conquered queen of the Amazons. The Amazons were in the Greek mythology lady warriors, who according to the dramatist Aeschylus, had lived in Scythia, and whose queen was named Hippolyta. The legend tells that the Amazons had been conquered by Theseus, the King of Athens and his conquest had been documented in his wedding ceremony with the queen of the Amazons. Another couple in the play that reminds us of Greek mythology are Oberon and Titania, whose names were partly invented and partly inspired from Germanic mythology, such as in the case of Oberon; the two reminds us rather of Zeus and Hera, who represent the main deities in the Greek mythology. The reason I make this comparison is the permanent quarrel between the two, which doesn’t only disturb the balance of the nature and the fairies’ world, but also sets the human world in a complete confusion. So their influence on the human world has a great importance, just like in the Greek mythology, which deals on the one hand with relationships between deities, with all their sacred and profane patterns, and on the other hand with relationships between the deities and the people and their permanent interfering in the human lives.
Every character, in the play, human or deity represents a kind of prototype, which recurs in every Shakespearian comedy and romance. This kind of “prototype” has been analyzed, according to Abrams, within the literary theory of the archetype. In his essay on modern theories of literature and criticism, and especially on archetypal criticism, Abrams speaks about two important antecedents of the literary theory of the archetype, asserting that one of them was “the treatment of myth in writings by a group of comparative anthropologists at Cambridge University, especially James G. Frazer’s The Golden Bough (1890 – 1915), which identified elemental patterns of myth and ritual that, it claimed, recur in the legends and ceremonials of many diverse and far-flung cultures” and the second was “the depth psychology of Carl G. Jung (1875 – 1961) who applied the term ‘archetype’ to what he called ‘primordial images’, the ‘psychic residue’ of repeated patterns of experience in the lives of our very ancient ancestors which, he maintained, survive in the ‘collective unconscious’ of the human race and are expressed in myths, religion, dreams, and private fantasies, as well as in works of literature”[32].
[...]
[1] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London, 1965. Preface. Page xxii.
[2] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London, 1965.
[3] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London, 1965
[4] Abrams, M. H. A glossary of literary terms. Sixth edition. Cornell University. London. 1999. Pg. 39
[5] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. xxii
[6] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. xxii
[7] The expression „achieved unity of meanings“ is based on Abram’s explanation of New Criticism in “A glossary of literary terms”, pg. 247, as an “organic unity”. The new critics have seen the form of a work to be primarily “a structure of meanings”, which evolve into an integral and freestanding unity.
[8] „A galaxy of signifiers” is the expression Roland Barthes uses for Deconstruction in his essay “Interpretation”, S/Z, 1970, when speaking about the “ideal text”: “In this ideal text, the networks are many and interact, without any one of them being able to surpass the rest; this text is a galaxy of signifiers, not a structure of signifieds.” (Source of quotation: Prof. Dr. Dietmar Claas, The Importance of Reading, -A Reader- , Heinrich- Heine- Universität Düsseldorf, Roland Barthes, S/Z,1970, Interpretation, pg. 67)
[9] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 1
[10] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 3
[11] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 4
[12] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 4
[13] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 5
[14] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 6
[15] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 7
[16] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 8
[17] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 8 -9
[18] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 9
[19] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 9
[20] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 12
[21] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 13
[22] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 22
[23] Suerbaum, Ulrich. Der Shakespeare-Führer. Philipp Reclam jun. Stuttgart. 2001. Pg. 12
[24] http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/msnd/summary.html
[25] Abrams, M. H. A glossary of literary terms. Sixth edition. Cornell University. London. 1999. Pg. 122
[26] Abrams, M. H. A glossary of literary terms. Sixth edition. Cornell University. London. 1999. Pg. 122
[27] Abrams, M. H. A glossary of literary terms. Sixth edition. Cornell University. London. 1999. Pg. 122
[28] Abrams, M. H. A glossary of literary terms. Sixth edition. Cornell University. London. 1999. Pg. 123
[29] Abrams, M. H. A glossary of literary terms. Sixth edition. Cornell University. London. 1999. Pg. 123
[30] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 49
[31] Frye, Northrop. A natural perspective – the development of Shakespearean comedy and romance. Columbia University Press. New York and London. 1965. Pg. 48
[32] Abrams, M. H. A glossary of literary terms. Sixth edition. Cornell University. London. 1999. Pg. 223
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen.