Books

O, vengeance! Why, what an ass am I!

John Kerrigan’s examination of the many vows, oaths, promises, pledges and profanities contained in Shakespeare’s plays provides further rewarding reading

23 April 2016

9:00 AM

23 April 2016

9:00 AM

Shakespeare’s Binding Language John Kerrigan

Oxford University Press, pp.622, £35, ISBN: 9780198757580

Given this year’s 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death, there was always going to be a slew of new publications; few, I suspect, will have as long-lasting an effect as John Kerrigan’s. His field of inquiry is both straightforward and complicated. It is almost retrospectively obvious that Shakespeare’s plays contain a great amount of vows, oaths, swearing both covenantual and vulgar, pledges, promises and imprecations. The same might be said for a great many playwrights’ works; but the depth of subtlety which Kerrigan finds in the handling of these specific rhetorical forms is compelling.

It comprises broad historical context —this was an age in which oaths of allegiance were politically demanded and theologians debated, sometimes clandestinely, the extent to which one might perjure oneself for a higher moral reason — and attentive readings of the plays. Although it deals with major texts, the concentration on less well known or infrequently staged plays is welcome: the forswearing of female company (and avowals of fidelity) in Love’s Labour’s Lost; the compacts of vengeance in Henry VI Part 2 and Titus Andronicus; the oaths and tokens in Troilus and Cressida and the forked-tongue allegiances in King John, Henry VIII and the unstaged Sir Thomas More.

When Kerrigan does discuss the A-level plays, he uses the Final Honours texts to throw them into relief. So, Hamlet is discussed in terms of the ways in which the scenes one might assume would appear in a revenge tragedy are slyly avoided. Important parallels are drawn between Macbeth and All’s Well That Ends Well, not just in terms of equivocation and riddling but the oddly gothic ending of All’s Well, with the pregnant Helena — ‘one that’s dead is quick’ — appearing as unfeasibly as the man ‘not born of woman’. Timon of Athens and King Lear have been compared before in terms of their misanthropic rustication, but not in terms of their fascination with generosity and profligacy.


Kerrigan has a keen eye for the overlooked moment — Othello’s name not only has a quibble on ‘oath’ in it, he is kneeling while his subordinate Iago at first stands; the significance of the reference to Laertes having trained with the Norman Lamord; the parallel dead or condemned brothers in Measure for Measure. I am delighted to know that a 1620 German adaptation of Titus featured a stage direction that indicates that, in early performances, Titus picked up his own severed hand and thrust it to heaven. Even when straying from his theme into speculation, there is an enlightening scrutiny: why does nobody notice that Claudius’s cover story for the death of Old Hamlet — a snake bite — is singularly unlikely in northern Europe?

The reading of The Merchant of Venice is very strong indeed, and tries to reconcile the Shylock–Antonio plot with the love comedy along the lines of indebtedness, reciprocal exchanges and broken promises. Time and again, the book shows that to plight your troth puts you in plight.

With somewhat academic abashment, Kerrigan writes that Shakespeare’s Binding Language ‘was not written, however, to encourage others to look at oaths, vows and profanities’, yet it is precisely what it does, if not in a scholarly sense, then in a readerly one. Vows intersect curiously with questions of identity, as when Proteus in The Two Gentlemen of Verona realises that, of his friends and promises, ‘if I keep them, I needs must lose myself’, Iago swears, ‘Heaven is my judge’, that he is hostile to Othello — but ends ‘I am not what I am.’

Kerrigan’s very elegant and adept reading of Coriolanus sent me back to the text,where promising, vowing and integrity are such concerns. There I noticed that Coriolanus does not attack Aufidius in Act V on the mention of the word ‘traitor’, but after he says ‘Name not the god, thou boy of tears’ after Coriolanus invokes Mars, prompting derisory repetitions of ‘boy’ by Coriolanus, who has tried to align vir and virtue throughout, succumbing to petulant fury. Of course, Coriolanus invoked Mars in Act I. Occasionally, a wry eyebrow can be detected — as when Kerrigan notes that some critics have fixated on the anus at the end of the name Coriolanus — but he brings it back graciously looking at the cor-etymology, and the debate on tongues swearing what hearts deny, and even suggesting, a tad inventively, a regal hint in rio.

Even when I read with scepticism, I read this with enthusiasm. All the make-books of hypothetical authorship, missing skulls and luvvie platitudes will not be as deep or as rewarding.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Available from the Spectator Bookshop, £35 Tel: 08430 600033

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • congreve

    Poor Will. The academics have got his 400th by the short and curlies are are text-raking their way through it. All the public want or need (perhaps the fifteenth generation since his time) are the plays, not the nit-picking. The play’s the thing.

    This reminds me of Radio 3 in its good old days of eschewing and demonizing classical music in favour of the modern atonality. So well did they trash the airwaves that ClassicFM eventually rolled over Beethoven into a gap so wide all London buses would have fitted into it. Now the public love their Classical, even if most of them know it incomplete and only in compilation or compendium.

    Well, compendium Shakespeare will do just fine. A little bit of this and a little bit of that suits the modern attention span. If Shakespeare is never to die he must be adapted — for the next fifteen generations, if not for the delight of society’s purist pinhead aficionados.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    test
    Not blocked. Wonders will never cease.
    Finally got a response from Border Force regarding the unprofessional behavior by one of their LHR officers. As you might expect, a total pack of lies. An officer who lies is an officer that can’t be used as a witness in a trial when he is under oath. While said officer may be willing to perjure himself, his colleagues may not be willing go that far to back him up. Thus greatly degrading his effectiveness to the service.
    Would that be the story line of the Merchant of Venice?

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    For over a month Spectator have been partly blocking my contributions. Only partly. What bunch of incompetant Muppets, can’t even do that right.
    Once you start to bad-mouth Border Force, those wonderful people dedicated to letting the wrong people in while keeping the right people out, then the fat’s in the fire.
    You know who owns you when you find out who you can’t criticise.

Close