A brief series of notes apparently composed by Frye in the process of turning his undergraduate lectures into Northrop Frye on Shakespeare, which they echo at various points, Notebook 29 dates from sometime prior to 1986, when that book was published. It is located in the NFF, 1991, box 25.
[1] H: We’re imprisoned by what we’ve done, but unless we’ve committed a major crime like Claudius we’re not too crippled by it: we adjust to the gradual narrowing of our abilities and interests. But there’s a deeper imprisonment in what we are (“characterological armor”1 or whatever), and Hamlet is the most impressive example we have in literature of a titanic spirit thrashing around in the prison of what he is.2
[2] H: there are a lot of pointless puzzles in the play of the L.C. Knights variety,3 though so many even of those that they seem to make some point. But why does Hamlet say “I loved you ever” to Laertes [5.1.314], forgetting that he’s exterminated his family? He apologizes to Laertes for this, blaming his act on his madness [5.2.237-43]: but the killing of Polonius took place in precisely the scene [3.4] where he adjures his mother not to think he is mad. Besides, if he can be “not guilty by reason of insanity,” Ophelia is not guilty of (watch what you’re doing, you fool)4 suicide, and both the grave-diggers and that crappy priest say she is.5
[3] H: is there any reason for Hamlet’s resenting Laertes’ very moderate expression of grief for his sister, except that in himself he’s come to associate big talk with doing nothing? (“Show me what thou’lt do” [5.1.297]). Ophelia has had nothing but hectoring from her father, priggish harangues from her Laertes, and brutality from Hamlet, so all this love comes rather late in the day.6
[4] IL [Introductory Lecture]: Shakespeare has no precedents for tragedy except Seneca, who may not have written for the stage. TA is a very Senecan tragedy: even those who would detest it for its brutality and crude melodrama would have to admit that it was superb theatre. That tells us something important about Shakespeare: that for him the actable and theatrical element comes first, not the qualities we think of as more typical of a major poet.7
[5] The same is true of the H6 plays, even though they do need editing for a modern audience less fascinated with the civil war period. (Some notice of the H6-R3 sequence, and why it had such an appeal, should go here in IL [Introductory Lecture]).
[6] AC: When we see Cleopatra & Antony maltreating messengers the irony goes deeper than with Lear or Hamlet: the latter belong to legend and A and C are puppets of history. Hence it marks the first steps toward the puppet techniques of the romances. But the five fold division of divine, romantic, social, ordinary & ironic is much clearer in AC [Antony and Cleopatra],8 so the expanding of the stage to include divine and romantic perspectives is also clearer, as sovereigns of Egypt were divine beings. That too is a feature of romance, except for T, and except that A & C both have of course fake gods.9
[7] AC: The serpent of the Nile, with the serpent-baby at her breast (the only thing she’s ever expressed any maternal feeling about), whose bite is like a lover’s pinch that hurts and is desired [5.2.295-6]: the points of birth, death & sexual union are all the same point. The old dispensation figure: a Herodias holding Herod’s head in contrast to Salome holding John’s. Check to see what Plutarch says about Herod: the white goddess has forgotten him.10
[8] KL: By “nothing” Shakespeare means the loss of identity, not of existence. Lear and R2 are kings & A = B, the king’s two bodies.11 And if A = B, then A - B = o, an O without a figure, as the Fool says [1.4.212].12
[9] WT: the F-P [Florizel-Perdita] recognition opens up the future; the L-H {Leontes-Hermione] one closes up the past. Time is the Demeter renewal-of-nature myth; the other is the Pygmalion triumph-of-art one. (Romano link with P’s [Pygmalion’s] plea in Ovid to have a girl “just like” his statue).13
[10] Maria is the vice of TN, & disguised her handwriting. Perhaps Toby’s marrying her is an admission that she’s better at manipulating people than he is. He’s such a slug: he only challenges Sebastian because he thinks he’s “Cesario” & will be easy pickings. Marriage to Maria again: he hangs on as a parasite in Olivia’s menage by marrying a servant, & calls it condescension.14
[11] MND gives the impression of being commissioned for a festival, probably a marriage: in short, of being the kind of thing Theseus is looking for from the very opening of the play. One gets the impression that the offerings are pretty sparse that Philostrate comes up with.15
[12] Each world has its own music: one the mermaid, the other the cry of hounds. (We don’t think of the latter as a kind of symphony orchestra, but that’s because we don’t know a Renaissance prince’s feeling about the hunt).16
[13] R2 is [as] much a madcap prince as H5, and the parallel is emphasized by H4 to his son. But we see R2 only in the last few months of his reign; we get only a token scene of his loafing buddies & his extravagance, & he programs himself as a loser.17 Cf. Marlowe’s E2 [Edward II], where the brutality of E’s treatment swings our sympathies.
[14] H5, when a prince, is flanked by Hotspur & Falstaff. The rashness & cowardice of that pair are extremes of courage. The first part is the tragedy of Hotspur, & his dying speech shows he’s been running away from something. The second is the “tragedy” of Falstaff, & his behavior on the eve of the coronation shows the corresponding rashness.
[15] WT: glimpse of myth of mother hiding a returned child from a jealous father.18
[16] (These colored pens don’t work very well.)19 2H4: Falstaff has promised marriage both to Mrs. Q. [Quickly] & a certain “Ursula.” So he’s in the MW situation, only more successful. One of Falstaff’s less attractive characteristics is the lack of any sense of women as human beings: he regards them as supply depots for food & drink, sex, and (if they’ve got any) money. The MW legend is probably wrong because F can’t love women, & Queen E would have been quite sharp enough to see that F. in MW is only on the prowl for money.