The Substance of Shakespearean Tragedy -By A.C.Bradley What is the nature of the tragic aspect of life as represented by Shakespeare?

A.C.Bradley Is the question that A.C. Bradley attempts to boggle over in his series of lectures The Substance on Shakespearean Tragedy, which were later published. God is Dead -Freidrich Nietzsche, Religion is the opiate of the masses -Karl Marx God is mans creation -Albert Einstein For a man who has been exposed to such ideas, he cannot faithfully accept the criticisms made by Shakespeares counterparts who either despised or praised Shakespeare; nor can the Modern critic blindly acknowledge Dryden who associated an aspect of luck to the wisdom of the Bard and the 18th century critiques of Samuel Johnson, Charles Lamb and Coleridge who are hardcore believers that Shakespeares canon is a true representation of life. The Modern critic will view Shakespeare through his new found enlightenment. A.C.Bradley is the first Modern Shakespearean critique. What makes Bradley a Modern critique is most obviously his ability of not accepting Shakespearean tragic heros-or any character or person for that matter- as being fatalistic. When there is somebody above us to blame, to question and to rely on; life is easy on the person living it. It is when humans strip themselves of the thought that our suffering is Gods will is when we will begin to act for our redemption from the suffering. The first chapter of the lecture briefly jots down the features of a Shakespearean tragedy- it deals with the life of a Hero of high degree (and Heroine in Romeo and Juliet and Antony and Cleopatra) who suffers exceptional calamity leading to his accidental death in the midst of prosperity. Shakespearean tragedy is paralleled to that of Chaucer and Dante, A total reverse of fortune, coming unawares upon a man who 'stood in high degree,' such was the tragic fact to the medieval mind.a power which appears to smile on him for a little, and then on a sudden strikes him down in his pride. The second Chapter opens with a statement, A Shakespearean tragedy as so far considered may be called a story of exceptional calamity leading to the death of a man in high estate. But it is clearly much more than this, and we have now to regard it from another side. These lines emphasise transition, the end of a period and the beginning of the next. Bradley was the pioneer who took the first step towards the transition and regarded Shakespearean tragedy from the Modern understanding. Even before he begins with the criticism he documents the fact that what he has to say about Shakespeares tragedy is

nothing like anything that has been said earlier, thus making this statement significant. So, Bradley is being critical of Shakespeares former critics and not Shakespeare. Bradley says that no suffering is merely sent to the Hero. It happens because of the surrounding and the action the Hero pursues in the situation reduces him so. The deed will inevitably take the Hero to another situation were he has to act again and this ends up in a series of events intensifying the calamity. Thus, along with the previously present idea that a tragic Hero is a sufferer Bradley additionally merges the idea that he is also the cause for his own suffering. These actions beget others, and these others beget others again, until this series of interconnected deeds leads by an apparently inevitable sequence to a catastrophe. Macbeths flaw of taunting ambition must not be seen as merely sent to him, it must be viewed as a circumstantial willing option that he chooses. Previously a valiant General takes crooked paths to meet his end; he is not a ludicrous fool. Macbeth had the option of suppressing his ambition and not kill King Duncan. The thought was motivated by his wife and the witches; he chose to act upon it, and the next thing he knows he is killing every suspicious person around him- the series of actions that Bradley focuses on. The guilt of murder and the alienated mental plague that accompany it is the calamity Bradley refers to. Humans have vivid imagination and we can materialize thoughts. Our hands have evolved to hold a dagger in our fists and pierce it onto another physical body similar to ourselves. This idea of actions and imaginations begetting one another, leads to a chain of reactions and thoughts. This chain followed by a crisis results in the ultimate damnation of the Hero, the doom being the Heros death in all of Shakespeares tragedies. The question is is Shakespeares true character noble or is it murderous? Must we say that the event and thought unmasked his character or did it mask his true nature? He killed King Duncan because he didnt choose the option of not killing him. omissions thoroughly expressive of the doer, -- characteristic deeds In a tragedy the actions are vital. Bradley is not attempting to put across the idea that Shakespeare intended to focus on the character and their deeds, the Critic even mentions that to say so would be a great mistake. The genius of the man is also considered to be the first psychologist for spending so much on the behaviour of his characters. Shakespeares concentration on poetry in dialogue and plot was subordinate to that of character. For he was dramatic to the tip of his fingers The chapter closes with the Critic stressing on the importance of the persona of the tragic characters, it is that persona influenced but the surrounding which persuades to the downfall of the Hero and not the other way around of the action influencing the persona. is that the calamities and catastrophe follow inevitably from the deeds of men, and that the main source of these deeds is character. The dictum that, with Shakespeare, 'character is destiny' is no doubt an exaggeration. The Heros autonomy might be the cause for the Aristocratic tragic hero. But, this argument does not legitimise the poor who suffer in poverty as if it is their punishment for no crime committed by them. Actions and reactions consequentially resulting in calamity explain only Shakespearean and Classical tragedies.