Lucrece
Roger Peters Copyright © 2001
After he had completed Venus and Adonis, Shakespeare set about writing the
�graver labour� he had promised Southampton in its dedication. The �graver
labour� meant turning the legendary tale of Tarquin and Lucrece into a more
thoughtful expression of his mythic philosophy than he had achieved with
Venus and Adonis.
InVenus and Adonis, Shakespeare used the logic of his mythic philosophy
to correct the inconsistencies in the Ovidian version of the myth. Now, to
demonstrate the utility of his mythic logic he chose a legendary story of a
type similar to his early history-based plays. Most of the plays written before
1594 were history based: 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, 3 Henry IV, and Richard
III were sourced from a combination of historical chronicles and traditional
literature. Titus Andronicus written around 1593 is also of interest because,
like Lucrece, its backdrop is the Roman world.
Volumes of academic energy have been expended comparing
Shakespeare�s history plays with the historic records. However, the Sonnet
philosophy was written to present the mythic philosophy behind all his plays
and poems (as argued in Volume 1), then the historic records provide no
more than stories upon which Shakespeare developed his philosophic
content. So Shakespeare�s �graver labour� in adapting the original rape of
Lucrece to his mythic philosophy provides an opportunity to note philosophic
distance between his Lucrece and the historical account.
If, following Venus and Adonis, Shakespeare penned Lucrece in 1594 as
the second intentional expression of his already maturing natural logic, then
Lucrece should provide evidence of his philosophic intent. If Shakespeare
intended to give a more rigorous expression to his philosophy in Lucrece,
then there should be a significant use of the themes based in Nature, increase,
and truth and beauty. There should also be a greater awareness of the logical
conditions for mythic expression, and a correspondingly devastating critique
of traditional apologetics.
The critique of traditional mythologies, begun in the two long poems,
was later made definitive in the Sonnets. When the philosophic intent in
Lucrece is revealed using the Sonnet logic, it will be evident that Shakespeare�s
�history� plays were also written primarily to express his philosophy. From
around 1590 when he wrote 1 Henry IV to 1613 when he wrote Henry VIII
his intention was to use historical events to demonstrate the ubiquity of
natural logic.
Explicit in Shakespeare�s mythic reworking of Lucrece is a critique of the
traditional contradictions involved in sanctifying chastity with its logical
implications for sexuality. The contradiction is manifested in the way Tarquin
experiences an uncontrollable sexual urge when Colatine makes chastity an
object of excessive pride. Consistent with the logical status of the poem as
erotic, the mythic consequence for Tarquin and Lucrece, as well as for
Colatine, is the death of the procreative opportunity.
The banishment rather than death of Tarquin at the end of the poem
points to the mutual culpability of Colatine and Tarquin in providing the
logical conditions for sexual excess. The suicide of Lucrece is the consequence
of her inability to assess Tarquin�s intentions because of her
unworldly naivet�. Her lengthy deliberations on the logical consequences
of innocent chastity, and her identification with the mythological events in
the Trojan painting, are precursors to her mythic fate.
Shakespeare reconstructs the story of Tarquin and Lucrece as a consistent
expression of mythic logic. Implicit throughout is a devastating critique of
traditional mythological inconsistencies in the biblical representation of the
status of myth. By using the mythic logic articulated so precisely in the
Sonnets it is possible to appreciate the intent in Venus and Adonis and Lucrece
in a way not before achieved. Moreover, it is possible to get a measure of
the way Shakespeare�s corpus stands against traditional contradictions and
how it presents at the mythic level a consistent expression of the natural logic
of life.
Analysis of Lucrece
The Argument
The first stanza of Lucrece is preceded by an �Argument� in prose. It was
inserted by Shakespeare to indicate his logical concerns and to background
the events described in the poem.
The �Argument� identifies two types of idealised self-regard critiqued by
the mythic logic of Shakespeare�s poem. The �excessive pride� of Lucius
Tarquinius, the usurping King of Rome who was responsible for the murder
of his father-in-law, is contrasted with the �incomparable chastity� of
Colatine�s wife, Lucrece.
Lucius Tarquinius (for his excessive pride surnamed Superbus), after
he had caused his own father in law Servius Tullius to be cruelly
murdered, and contrary to Roman laws and customs, not requiring or
staying for the peoples suffrages, had possessed himself of the kingdom:
went accompanied with his sons and other Noble men of Rome, to
besiege Ardea. During which siege, the principal men of the Army
meeting one evening at the Tent of Sextus Tarquinius, the King�s son,
in their discourses after supper everyone commended the virtues of his
own wife: among whom Colatinus extolled the incomparable
chastity of his wife Lucretia �
The �excessive pride� manifested at the level of kingship is the canker
that infects the expectations of Colatine and Tarquin. Excessive pride is
identified as the fault that leads to the tragedy of Lucrece�s rape and death.
The abrogation of responsibility at the level of kingship corrupts the respect
for degree in the society. Shakespeare, throughout his works, is consistent
in attributing guilt to the powerful when social order disintegrates. Ulysses�
speech in Troilus and Cressida lays the blame for the malaise in the Greek
camp firmly on Agamemnon�s inability to marshal the respect of Achilles
and hence the rest of the Greeks.
Because the poem begins when Sextus Tarquinius, the son of the King,
departs on a secret mission to seduce Lucrece in Colatium, Colatine�s
hometown, the Argument describes the trial by �chastity� that takes place
earlier. During an after-dinner discourse, Tarquin, Colatine and other nobles
decide to ride to Rome to determine who has the most virtuous wife. The
�avouched trial� was judged a �victory� for Colatine. But Colatine�s gamble
on his wife chastity �inflames� Sextus Tarquinius� passion for �Lucrece�s
beauty�. So he sets off secretly with an uncontrollable desire to �ravish her�.
The remainder of the �Argument� summarises the events in the poem
and closes with Brutus� �bitter invective against the tyranny of the King�. It
records that at the end of the poem the absolute power of the King is revoked
and replaced by the rule of �consuls�.
Shakespeare�s poem not only considers the personal failures that lead to
the death of Lucrece and the exile of Tarquin but, with the banishment of
the �King�, also addresses their public culpability. The correlation between
the judgments of personal and public actions is a consequence of
Shakespeare�s consistent natural logic. The correlation is expressed even more
explicitly in Coriolanus, also sourced from Roman history.
The poem
In the first stanza of Lucrece, Shakespeare introduces the opposing characteristics
that determine the illogical actions of the protagonists Colatine,
Tarquin and Lucrece. At the same time Shakespeare�s overview of their
actions initiates a poem that is a consistent expression of mythic logic.
From the besieged Ardea all in post,
Borne by the trustless wings of false desire,
Lust-breathed Tarquin leaves the Roman host,
And to Colatium bears the lightless fire,
Which in pale embers hid, lurks to aspire,
And girdle with embracing flames, the waist
Of Colatine�s fair love, Lucrece the chaste. (1-7)
Tarquin hastens from Ardea �borne by the trustless wings of false desire�.
He brings to the house of Colatine a �lightless fire�, or fruitless desire, for
�Lucrece the chaste�. Tarquin�s �false desire� is a direct consequence of
Colatine�s selfish pride generated in a culture of excessive pride.
In these early lines, Shakespeare signals his intent to critique inconsistent
mythologies that replace the priority of human increase in Nature with the
false desire for heavenly pleasures. The �lightless fire� of Tarquin�s desire represents,
mythically, the logical inability of Shakespeare�s poem, or any poetry,
to substitute for the sexual dynamic in Nature. Tarquin�s inability to
consummate his lust when he eventually rapes Lucrece is consistent with
the fallacy of idealistic expectations, and represents Shakespeare�s awareness
of the logical limitations of mythic expression.
Colatine�s decision to test his wife�s virtue, by riding to Rome to verify
his claim, shows an immaturity of judgment. His misjudgment reveals the
immaturity of his relationship with Lucrece. Moreover, the implications of
his immaturity are again brought to light after Lucrece�s rape. First, when
Lucrece agonises about her incapacity to anticipate and resist Tarquin�s evil
intent and then, at the end of the poem, when Lucretius (Lucrece�s father)
and Colatine fight for the love of the dead Lucrece.
In the Sonnets, Shakespeare argues that chastity should not be considered
an end in itself. Its value is always conditional on a regard for
natural logic. If natural logic is not respected then �Lucrece�s chastity� is a
defenseless pose.
So in the first stanza, the three principal protagonists are characterised
as having a lack of �trust� in the logical conditions for life. Shakespeare is
clear, even in the early 1590s, about the logical conditions for life he later
articulates in the philosophy of the Sonnets. After Venus and Adonis he applies
them in a poem about an historic event to demonstrate his early mastery of
the logical conditions. The mythic consistency of Lucrece shows how
Shakespeare systematically used natural logic in his early plays.
The seriousness of the misjudgments by Colatine, Tarquin and Lucrece
in the first stanza is confirmed in the second.
Haply that name of chaste, unhapp'ly set
This bateless edge on his keen appetite:
When Colatine unwisely did not let,
To praise the clear unmatched red and white,
Which triumph'd in that sky of his delight:
Where mortal stars as bright as heaven's Beauties,
With pure aspects did him peculiar duties. (8-14)
In Lucrece, Shakespeare does not argue against the value of chastity. Rather
he argues against the illogical idealisation of it. So being chaste, which can be
the cause of happiness becomes, �unhappily� in Lucrece, the cause of all the
drama. It was Lucrece�s illogically valued chasteness that set the �bateless edge�
on Tarquin�s �appetite�. The blame is attached then to Colatine who
�unwisely� could not resist the opportunity to �praise the clear unmatched�
resolution of opposites, or �red and white�, in Lucrece. In the commentary on
Venus and Adonis, it was observed that the interrelation of red and white is
symbolic of the logical derivation of the dynamic of truth from beauty.
The stanza also makes a connection between Colatine�s confusion of �red
and white� and his preference for heavenly over mortal �stars�. In the Sonnets
Shakespeare is at pains to dismiss heavenly �stars� as logically inappropriate
as a means to determine truth and beauty. Instead, he identifies the �eyes� as
the �constant stars� from which he derives his knowledge and art, or truth
and beauty (sonnet 14). It is not surprising, then, that in Lucrece he identifies
Colatine�s lack of judgment with his confusion between the heavenly stars
and the �mortal stars� that are his wife�s eyes.
The third stanza specifically connects Colatine�s heavenly conceit with
the rousing of Tarquin�s desire.
For he the night before in Tarquin�s Tent,
Unlock�d the treasure of his happy state:
What priceless wealth the heavens had him lent,
In the possession of his beauteous mate.
Reck�ning his fortune at such high proud rate,
That Kings might be espoused to more fame,
But King nor Peer to such a peerless dame. (15-21)
Colatine attributes to the �heavens� the �priceless wealth� or �treasure� that
was Lucrece. He proudly �unlocked� the �treasure� in the face of Tarquin �the
night before�. (Not insignificantly, in the Sonnets and plays, �treasure�
frequently refers to the vagina.) Colatine exacerbates the effect on Tarquin
by asserting that no �King� could have such a �dame�. The illogicality of
Colatine�s heavenly conceit is compounded by the taunt to Tarquin, the son
of the imperial Roman King.
For Shakespeare, Colatine�s claim that his �possession� (22) of a �priceless�
beauty was beyond the �peer�, even of kings, is the logical error that leads
to his wife�s rape.
O happiness enjoy�d but of a few,
And if possess�d as soon decay�d and done:
As is the morning�s silver melting dew,
Against the golden splendour of the sun.
An expir�d date cancell�d ere well begun.
Honour and Beauty in the owner�s arms,
Are weakly fortress�d from a world of harms. (22-8)
Consistent with the arguments in the Sonnets, regarding the ill consequences
of the over-valuation of the ideal, the idealisation of Lucrece creates
the fertile ground for the incitement of its contrary. Colatine claimed he
�possessed� a �heaven� sent wife, but such �heavenly� standards of �Honour and
Beauty� are logically susceptible to �the world of harms�.
...continued in Volume 3, William Shakespeare's Sonnet Philosophy
Back to Top
Roger Peters Copyright © 2001
Introduction
Venus and Adonis
Lucrece
Love's Labour's Lost
The Phoenix and the Turtle
Measure for Measure
Macbeth
A Lover's Complaint
|
