We can safely say that this person changed the world, mentality, perception, attitude towards art as such. William Shakespeare, whose works are studied in the school curriculum, was a real genius. His plays and poems can be called a true encyclopedia of human relationships, a kind of mirror of life, a reflector of the shortcomings and strengths of human beings.

Great genius

Shakespeare's works are an impressive contribution to world literature. During his life, the great Briton created seventeen comedies, eleven tragedies, ten chronicles, five poems and one hundred fifty-four sonnets. It is interesting that their topics, the problems described in them, are relevant to this day. Even many researchers of the playwright's creativity cannot give an answer how in the sixteenth century a person could create works that excite all generations. It was even hypothesized that the works were written not by one person, but by a certain group of authors, but under one pseudonym. But the truth has not yet been established.

short biography

Shakespeare, whose works are so beloved by many, left many mysteries behind him and very few historical facts... It is believed that he was born near Birmingham, in the city of Stratford-upon-Avon, in 1564. My father was engaged in trade and was a wealthy city dweller. But questions of literature and culture were not discussed with little William: there was no environment in the city at that time that would favor the development of talent.

The boy went to a free school, at the age of eighteen he married (forcedly) a rich girl, she was eight years older than him. Apparently, Shakespeare did not like family life, so he joined a wandering group of artists and left for London. But he was not lucky to become an actor, so he wrote poetry in honor of influential persons, served the horses of wealthy theater goers, worked as a prompter, and completed plays. Shakespeare's first works appeared when he was 25 years old. Then he wrote again and again. They were delivered and were successful. In 1599, the famous Globe Theater was built at the expense of the artists of the group, including Shakespeare. In it the playwright worked tirelessly.

Features of the works

Even then, Shakespeare's works differed from traditional dramas and comedies. Their distinctive feature was deep content, the presence of intrigue that changes people. William showed how low even a noble person can fall under the influence of circumstances, and, conversely, how notorious villains perform great deeds. The playwright forced his characters to reveal their character gradually, as the plot developed, and the audience - to empathize with the characters, follow the scene. And Shakespeare's works are also characterized by high moral pathos.

It is not surprising that the genius of drama already during his lifetime deprived many authors of income, since the public demanded precisely his work. And he met the demands of demand - he wrote new plays, replayed ancient plots, used historical chronicles. Success gave William wealth, and even the coat of arms of the nobility. He died, as is commonly believed, after a fun feast in honor of his birthday in a friendly circle.

Shakespeare's works (list)

We will not be able to list in this article all the works of the greatest English playwright. But let us point out the most famous works of Shakespeare. The list is as follows:

• "Romeo and Juliet".
• "Hamlet".
• Macbeth.
• "A dream in a summer night".
• Othello.
• "King Lear".
• "The Merchant of Venice".
• "Much ado about nothing".
• "Storm".
• "Two Veronese".

These plays can be found in the repertoire of any self-respecting theater. And, of course, paraphrasing the famous saying, we can say that an actor who does not dream of playing Hamlet is bad, an actress who does not want to play Juliet is bad.

To be or not to be?

Shakespeare's work "Hamlet" is one of the brightest, most heartfelt. The image of the Danish prince excites to the depths of the soul, and his eternal question makes you think about your life. For those who have not yet read the full version of the tragedy, here's a summary. The play begins with the appearance of a ghost in kings. He meets with Hamlet and tells him that the king did not die a natural death. It turns out that the father's soul demands revenge - the murderer Claudius not only took the wife of the late king, but also the throne. Wanting to verify the truthfulness of the words of the night vision, the prince pretends to be a madman and invites the wandering artists to the palace to stage the tragedy. Claudius's reaction betrayed him, and Hamlet decides to take revenge. Palace intrigues, betrayals of his beloved and former friends make the prince an avenger without a heart. He kills several of them, defending himself, but dies from the sword of the brother of the deceased Ophelia. In the end, everyone dies: both Claudius, who falsely took the throne, and the mother, who drank the wine prepared for Hamlet, poisoned by her husband, and the prince himself and his opponent Laertes. Shakespeare, whose works are moved to tears, described the problem not only in Denmark. But the whole world, hereditary monarchy, in particular.

The tragedy of two lovers

Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a touching story about two young people who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to be with their chosen one. This is a story about warring families who did not allow their children to be together, to be happy. But the children of the warring nobles do not care about the established rules, they decide to be together. Their meetings are filled with tenderness and deep feelings. But they found a groom for the girl, and her parents tell her to get ready for the wedding. In a street brawl between representatives of two warring families, Juliet's brother dies, and Romeo is considered the killer. The ruler wishes to expel the criminal from the city. A monk and a nurse help the young people, but they have not fully discussed all the details of the escape. As a result, Juliet drinks a potion, from which she falls into Romeo, but considers her beloved dead and drinks poison in her crypt. After waking up, the girl kills herself with the guy's dagger. The Montagues and the Capulets reconcile, mourning their children.

Other jobs

But William Shakespeare wrote works and others. These are funny comedies that lift your spirits, light and lively. They talk about people, though famous, but those who are not alien to love, passion, desire for life. Play on words, misunderstandings, happy accidents lead the heroes to a happy end. If there is sadness in the plays, it is fleeting, such as to emphasize the cheerful turmoil on the stage.

The sonnets of the great genius are also original, filled with deep thoughts, feelings, experiences. In poetry, the author turns to a friend, beloved, grieves in separation and rejoices at the meeting, is disappointed. A special melodic language, symbols and images create an elusive picture. Interestingly, in most of the sonnets Shakespeare refers to a man, possibly to Henry Risley, Earl of Southampton, the playwright's patron saint. And only then, in later works, does a dark lady appear, a cruel coquette.

Instead of an afterword

Everyone is simply obliged to read at least in translation, but the full content of the most famous works of Shakespeare, to make sure that greatest genius possessed the ability of a prophet, since he was able to identify the problems of even modern society. He was a researcher of human souls, noticed their disadvantages and advantages, pushed for change. Isn't this the purpose of art and a great master?

It is difficult today to imagine world literature without the creativity of W. Shakespeare and A. Pushkin.

Two different writers who lived on different continents, in different eras, at different times, brought up in different literary traditions. But both Shakespeare and Pushkin try their hand at creating dramatic works. At the same time, for Shakespeare, tragedy is the main literary genre in which Shakespeare became the "Great Shakespeare." The love and tragic death of Romeo and Juliet, the doubts and torments of Hamlet, the suffering of Lear - all this deeply worried the great English playwright and also all his contemporaries, the crowd of people that filled the medieval theater on the outskirts of London. Pushkin dabbled in various literary genres. But he also had tragedies.

William Shakespeare (1564-1616) - greatest writer the Renaissance. He is one of those titans who were born of this era, but in his significance he goes far beyond its limits. The art of the great English writer is the art of high artistic truth. His creations do not become the property of the past, they are not covered with the dust of centuries - they do not lose their lively beauty and power of influence even after almost four hundred years. Shakespeare's images with their rich inner life, tension of passions, depth of feelings and thoughts find a warm and lively response from absolutely different viewers. What explains the vitality and effectiveness of works of art created in such a distant past? The key to this is that, comprehending the truth of life, the historical truth, Shakespeare raised such important questions in his works that outgrew his time and passed on to the next generations. Knowing and reflecting in artistic images present, he was looking into the future. Shakespeare penetrated the inner world of man deeper than all his predecessors and contemporaries. He comprehended the suffering, vices and calamities that inevitably arise and grow on the basis of such a social system, where titles and gold serve as a measure of a person's value. We can regard Shakespeare's work as the highest literary achievement of the Renaissance. His plays absorbed the whole range of ideas of this time, humanistic aspirations for justice and knowledge of the truth of life. In his works, the features of the era, its progressive aspirations and its deep contradictions, which were especially acute and peculiar in the history of England, were most strongly reflected.

Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin (1799-1837) is the greatest folk poet, who embodied the achievements of previous domestic and world literature, who marked a higher stage of its further development with his work. A.S. Pushkin devoted almost 25 of his incomplete 38 years to poetry. These years not only raised him to the pinnacle of fame, but they gave a new look to Russian literature, opened up opportunities for it that allowed it, within several decades after the poet's death, to become a universally recognized literature of world significance, original and at the same time carrying a huge general human content. The poet denounced negative characters, fought against individualism and at the same time asserted positive images. Pushkin is the most vivid expression of feelings, thoughts and aspirations of his time. The ideal for him is a person who wants to own everything positive and overcome all negative in the experience of humanity throughout its history. In Pushkin, understanding contradictions real life counterbalanced by the awareness of the greatness and nobility of man - the only creator of history. He deeply and organically perceived the traditions of the Enlightenment and Renaissance. Like all enlighteners, Pushkin believed in the power of reason and its victory over darkness, and his faith is based on a deep analysis of his time. But Pushkin, rejecting the enlightened opposition of the hero to the masses, on the contrary, looked for sources explaining the need for the sharpest turns in history. Pushkin overcame classicistic and sentimental-romantic influences, went through civic romanticism and, relying on the achievements of his progressive predecessors, became the founder of a new Russian literature - the literature of reality. The behavior of the heroes of Pushkin's works is conditioned by their social environment, but they actively strive to protect their human rights and transform the surrounding reality. The experiences, feelings, moods of the characters are revealed in external actions, deeds and gestures. Pushkin emphasizes the individual and reveals the social and typical traits of the heroes. Pushkin's work became an example of a realistic method and style.

The remarkable English writer W. Shakespeare and the great Russian poet A.S. Pushkin often referred to the theme of villainy in their works. But this problem is most vividly expressed in Shakespeare's famous tragedy "Hamlet" and in the famous cycle of Pushkin's dramatic works "Little Tragedies".

The tragedy "Hamlet" (1601-1602) is one of the greatest works of world drama. Written for a certain time and in keeping with the moods of Shakespeare's contemporaries, it has attracted many generations of readers and viewers for more than three centuries with the significance of its content and mastery of form. The author's skill was manifested in the fact that in a relatively small work, he gave a rich picture of life and depicted the fate of several people, tried to comprehend the psychology of human actions. Hamlet is a clot of life.

This story was first recorded in Latin by the chronicler Saxon Grammaticus.

King Rerik of Denmark entrusts the administration of Jutland to two brothers - Horvendil and Fengon. The fearless and successful Horvendil, after three years of war with the Norwegians, presents Rerik with honorary trophies, and he gives his daughter Geruta for him. Fengon, out of envy, kills his brother and takes possession of Geruta. However, the cunning and decisive Amlet (Hamlet in the pronunciation of the Jutlanders who settled in the east of Britain), the son of Horwendil and Geruta, in difficult conditions, almost alone, with the help of tricks, managed to deceive numerous powerful enemies and, having killed many people, avenged the murder of his father.

The author does not indicate the specific time of action, but, judging by the fact that Horvendil goes on Viking campaigns, the messages are written on a tree, and the Danes dictate their will to the kings of Britain, the matter takes place approximately in the 7th-9th centuries. During the Renaissance, the French writer Belfort retold this story with significant changes in his book Tragic Stories (1576). One of Shakespeare's predecessors, apparently, Thomas the Kid (1558-1594), using the Belfort plot, wrote the tragedy Hamlet, which took place on stage in 1589 and 1594. In creating his tragedy, Shakespeare used Kid's play. For Shakespeare, history has always served as a rough material for creating action-packed performances. But, as in other similar cases, he gave this plot a completely new, original interpretation.

Although the action dates back to the distant past and takes place in medieval Denmark, Shakespeare paints here typical images of his contemporaries. "Hamlet" is a tragedy about how a person discovers the existence of evil in life. Shakespeare portrayed an exceptional villainy - a brother killed a brother. But the meaning of Hamlet's story goes beyond this case. Hamlet himself perceives this fact not as a private phenomenon, but as one of the expressions of the fact that evil has become ubiquitous and has taken deep roots in society. Speaking of the "rotten Danish state", denouncing the "depraved age", he means the England of his time.

Pushkin expressed his understanding of the psychology of villainy in the cycle literary works, dubbed "Little Tragedies".

The cycle of short poetry plays for reading, which includes the works: "The Covetous Knight", "Mozart and Salieri", "The Stone Guest", "Feast in Time of the Plague" - was not published in full during Pushkin's lifetime. The title - "Little Tragedies" - was given by the editor after his posthumous publication. The author himself hesitated for a long time in choosing the name of the cycle ("dramatic scenes of learning experiences"). The "Little Tragedies", which were destined to become great, took hold. The small form provided greater concentration of thought. The heated drama of disturbing experiences, the striving for artistic and philosophical analysis of them predetermined the central theme of the cycle - the tragic fate of the personality.

Although the characters in Little Tragedies do not lose their personal will and act according to their passions, their very passions are born of the living conditions in which the heroes find themselves. And no matter how varied the spiritual movements of the stage persons - lust for power and avarice, ambition and envy, love and fearlessness - they go back to one. Such a common idea-passion for the characters of "Little Tragedies" is the thirst for self-affirmation. Endowed with the desire for happiness, Pushkin's heroes cannot understand it otherwise than the enjoyment of life. And seeking happiness, they want to prove their superiority, exclusivity, to acquire special rights for themselves. In this they see the meaning of life. The heroes of tragedies are exceptional, the works themselves are reflections on a person, on his capabilities, on the problem of villainy. What is villainy?

Turning to the Dictionary of the Russian language edited by SI Ozhigov, we read: “Atrocity is the same as atrocity.

Atrocity is a serious crime. "

Let's turn to Shakespeare. Before us is the ancient castle of Danish kings - gloomy Elsinore. A castle that expresses the whole society. All humanity in the person of Elsinore.

The inhabitants of the castle are divided into two opposite groups. On the one hand - the gloomy, lonely figure of Prince Hamlet, clothed in mourning, overwhelmed with grief. On the other hand, there are the smug and, at first glance, complacent rulers of Denmark - King Claudius, Queen Gertrude and their entourage. Hamlet, student

Wittenberg University, the center of medieval scholarship, is far from this court world and is hostile to it.

The main enemy of Hamlet in Elsinore is his stepfather, King Claudius, "the jester on the throne", "the king of colorful rags," as Hamlet himself describes him. It is the opposite of the "wise man on the throne" ideal that humanists dreamed of. This is a real image of a "bloody monarch" hostile to the people. Claudius is cowardly, two-faced, and therefore especially disgusting. He is incapable of direct struggle, he commits crimes on the sly, hiding behind the guise of virtue and piety. And it is not high ambition that attracts him to crimes, but petty passions - the desire to live "to his heart's content", to have fun "to his heart's content." Realizing that his conscience is unclean, he repents before the Lord God in his prayer room, contemplating new murders at this time. The image of this "bloody king" embodies features that are especially hated by Shakespeare.

The Queen Mother, Gertrude, is a weak and narrow-minded woman, carried away by an insignificant and vicious person. She is devoid of fidelity and constancy of feelings, those virtues that Shakespeare especially highly valued. The Queen shows some concern for her son, but internally she is far from him, alien to his interests.

The support of the bloody monarchs, their attorneys and advisers were flattering and cunning courtiers like Polonius. Limitation and complacency are the main features of this "statesman". He imagines himself to be the smartest politician, but this is only a court politician, an empty talker who does not care about the interests of the state in the least, but thinks only about how to please the king and achieve well-being for himself and his children. He is a worthy assistant to his ruler. The goals of both are equally insignificant, the basis of their life activity is petty selfishness.

From his own experience, Polonius was convinced that the surest ways to success in the world of court intrigue are cunning, caution, and hypocrisy. The favorite techniques of the old courtier are eavesdropping, denunciation and spying. Shakespeare gives him an excellent speech characteristic. The speech of Polonius is a mixture of the common truths of "worldly wisdom", the philosophy of the "golden mean" with incoherent and verbose old man's chatter, "weaving of words", characteristic of a courtier of the 17th century. Here is an example of Polonius' "reasoning" about Hamlet's supposed madness:

There is no art here, my lady.

That he is mad is a fact. And the fact that it's a pity.

And it is a pity that the fact. Stupid turnover.

But still. I will be artless.

Let's say he's obsessed. Should

Find the cause of this effect,

Or defect, for the effect itself

Defective due to reason.

Lively young courtiers who are starting their "political" careers are moving along the same paths. They are even more insignificant than Polonius, who still has human feelings - love for his children. Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Osric and the like are the embodiment of spiritual emptiness. Shakespeare deliberately emphasizes their facelessness, drawing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as a kind of "paired image". They are obedient tools in the hands of crowned assassins, they have no will and opinions of their own, they are devoid of honor and conscience, they do not understand what friendship and loyalty are. Their lies and treachery are covered with secular gloss and a mask of benevolence. Hamlet calls Osric a "gnat" and compares people like him to bubbles. Osric's pretentious and empty speech was typical of the secular dandies of the day.

King Claudius and his court embody all the vices that revolt the honest soul of Hamlet: despotism, sycophancy, drunkenness, deceit and hypocrisy.

In the entire system of images of tragedy, the crisis experienced by the humanistic thought of England at the beginning of the 17th century found expression. The Middle Ages are over. The feudal era, where loyalty to the suzerain and military valor were considered the main virtues of man, gave way to a new period in history. The time has come for new ideas, values, and beginnings. Now the first place was given to entrepreneurship, the ability to adapt to any conditions, to conduct profitable business.

A slightly different time is described in one of Pushkin's "Little Tragedies" - "The Covetous Knight".

Medieval society is a world of knightly tournaments, touching patriarchy, and the worship of a lady of the heart. The knights were endowed with feelings of honor, nobility, independence, they stood up for the weak and offended. This idea of \u200b\u200bthe knightly code of honor is described in the tragedy.

The Miserly Knight depicts that historical moment when the feudal order had already cracked, and life entered new shores. The right to freedom was provided to their knights noble origin, feudal privileges, power over lands, castles, peasants. But a lot has already changed in the world. In order to preserve their freedom, the knights were forced to sell possessions and maintain their dignity with money. The pursuit of gold has become the essence of time. This rebuilt the whole world of knightly relations, the psychology of knights.

Already in the first scene, the splendor and splendor of the ducal court is just the outward romance of chivalry. Previously, the tournament was a test of strength, dexterity, courage, but now it amuses the eyes of splendid nobles. Albert is not very happy about his victory - the thought of a broken helmet weighs on the young man, who has nothing to buy new armor.

O poverty, poverty!

How she humiliates our hearts!

He laments bitterly. And he admits:

What was the fault of heroism? - stinginess.

Albert obediently obeys the stream of life that carries him to the Duke's palace. The young man, thirsty for amusement, wants to take a worthy place surrounded by the overlord and

stand on a par with the courtiers. Independence for him is the preservation of dignity among equals.

Money haunts Albert's imagination wherever he is. A frantic search for money formed the basis of the dramatic action of The Covetous Knight. Albert's appeal to the usurer, and then to the Duke - two actions that determine the course of the tragedy. And it is no coincidence that it is Albert, for whom money has become an idea-passion, who leads the tragedy.

Before Albert, three possibilities open up: either to receive money from the usurer under mortgage, or to wait for the death of his father (or to hasten it himself) and inherit wealth, or to force the father to adequately support his son. Albert tries all the ways that lead to money, but they end in complete failure.

This is because Albert is not in conflict with individuals, but with a whole century. Knightly ideas about honor and nobility are still alive in him, but he already understands the relative value of noble rights and privileges. In Albert, naivety is combined with perspicacity, chivalrous virtues with sober prudence.

Thus, all paths to gold, and hence to personal freedom, lead Albert to a dead end. The struggle turns out to be powerless and in vain: the passion for money is incompatible with honor and nobility. Therefore, hatred for the father is born, who could voluntarily free his son from poverty. Gradually, the secret thought about the death of the father turns into an open desire.

But if Albert preferred money to feudal privileges, then the Baron is obsessed with the idea of \u200b\u200bpower. Admiring his golden "hill", the Baron feels like a master:

I reign !. What a magical shine!

Obedient to me, my power is strong;

In her happiness, in her my honor and glory!

The Baron knows very well that money without power does not bring independence. From his point of view, wealth that is not based on the sword is "wasted" at a catastrophic rate.

Albert is such a "wasteful" for the Baron. Therefore, a son who can only squander wealth is a living reproach to the Baron and a direct threat to the idea defended by the Baron. Hence, it is clear how great the Baron's hatred for the heir - the wasteful, how great is his suffering at the mere thought that Albert will take power "over his power."

However, the Baron understands something else: power without money is also insignificant. The sword laid possession at the feet of the Baron, but did not satisfy his dreams of unlimited power. What the sword did not complete, gold must do. Thus, money becomes both a means of protecting independence and a path to unlimited power.

The idea of \u200b\u200bunlimited power turned into a fanatical passion and gave the Baron the power and grandeur. The seclusion of the Baron, who retired from the court and deliberately locked himself in the castle, can be interpreted as a kind of protection of his dignity, noble privileges, age-old life principles... But, clinging to the old foundations and trying to defend them, the Baron goes against the times. The discord with the century cannot but end in a crushing defeat for the Baron.

The reasons for the Baron's tragedy also lie in the contradiction of his passions.

However, the Baron is a knight. He remains a knight even when he talks with the Duke, when he is ready to draw his sword for him, when he challenges his son to a duel and when he is alone. Knightly valor is dear to him, his sense of honor does not disappear.

The Baron's lust for power acts both as a noble property of nature (thirst for independence), and as a crushing passion for the people sacrificed to her - the Baron dreams of that. For everything to obey him:

What is beyond my control? like some demon

From now on I can rule the world;

As soon as I want, palaces will be erected;

Into my magnificent gardens

The nymphs will come running in a frisky crowd;

And the muses will bring their tribute to me,

And a free genius will enslave me

And virtue and sleepless labor

They will humbly await my award.

I whistle, and obediently, timidly

Bloodied villainy creeps in

And he will lick my hand, and in my eyes

Look, in them is the sign of my reading will.

Everything is obedient to me, but I - to nothing

Obsessed with these dreams, the Baron cannot find freedom. His lust for power is reborn into a different, much lower passion for money. The Baron thinks that he is a tsar to whom everything is "obedient", but unlimited power belongs not to him, but to the pile of gold that lies before him.

However, before his death, knightly feelings stirred up in the Baron. He had long ago convinced himself that gold represents both honor and glory. However, in reality, the Baron's honor is his property. This truth pierced the Baron at the moment when Albert insulted him. Everything collapsed in the Baron's mind. All the sacrifices, all the accumulated jewels suddenly appeared senseless. The hour of powerlessness of gold came, and the knight woke up in the Baron:

So rise up, and judge us with the sword!

It turns out that the power of gold is relative, and there are human values \u200b\u200bthat cannot be bought or sold. This thought contradicts the Baron's path and beliefs.

The individualistic consciousness and "terrible hearts" of Pushkin's heroes are characteristic of the "terrible century."

But if in "The Covetous Knight" "terrible hearts" are characteristic of all characters, then in Shakespeare's tragedy there is a hero who decides to fight, and to fight not with an individual person, but with the whole "terrible century", with all its villainies and cruelty ...

Prince Hamlet - new person, suddenly realizing his alienation in the strange surreal world of the royal palace, the beginning of this realization was laid in front of the walls of the Elsinore palace, where the shadow of his late father-king appeared to Hamlet.

For the first time, the prince felt the breath of fate, for the first time entered into conversation with the inhabitant of the world of the dead. The first scene of the tragedy is striking in its grandeur. The ghost calls Hamlet with him to tell the prince on the edge of the cliff the terrible truth about the death of his father, the former king of Denmark. Perhaps, if Galet had not met the ghost of his father, the history of Elsinore castle would not have ended so tragically. But Hamlet met this ghost - this black man, and Hamlet learned the whole truth about his father's death.

The image of a black man who reports or warns about something, about some terrible events in the future or the past, is also found in the works of A.S. Pushkin.

Almost all poems, dramas, scenes, fairy tales, and stories of the poet are linked by one sign: the invasion of a supernatural otherworldly force into human life. But nowhere was this idea made such a terrible blurry spot as in the quiet tread of a faceless black man in the tragedy "Mozart and Salieri".

We do not know anything about a black man, we cannot imagine the features and expression of his face. For Mozart, this strange customer is just “someone” or “the same”, dressed in black, something almost otherworldly, ethereal. And in his very appearance in the house of Mozart there is nothing strange, because composers, especially not rich, often wrote music to order.

But Mozart is worried that this black man does not come for his order - for a requiem. In the strange visitor, dressed in black, Mozart's soul felt the messenger of death. And it turns out that he composed this mourning music for himself, because he himself admits that “it would be a pity to part with my work, even though Requiem is quite ready”.

The black man is not a figment of Mozart's imagination, because not only Mozart himself saw him, others reported to him three times about the visits of the black man. And now, exhausted by insomnia, darkened with suspicion, Mozart goes to Salieri and says: "I am ashamed to admit it." But why is it ashamed? After all, they are usually ashamed of something bad. Perhaps it is said "ashamed" because it is not a vague premonition, but a suspicion with an exact address - Mozart connects the black man and Salieri:

Here and now

It seems to me that he is with us the third

What a cheerful, light Mozart we can talk about in the first scene! What an idle reveler here. Mozart complains of constant insomnia: "My insomnia tormented me." "Mine" - so they say about something constant, familiar, established. No time for festivities these three weeks. And Mozart goes to his friend, deciding to confess his suspicions, to confess, to cleanse his soul.

But Salieri is acting strange. Right now, he asks impatient questions, interrupts the speaking Mozart. Up to this point, Salieri calmly listened to Mozart to the end. Salieri is stunned by the news of the Requiem. Before asking whether Mozart has been composing the Requiem for a long time, he can only exclaim: "Ah!" This is "Ah!" piercingly, because Salieri sentenced Mozart to death, and he, not knowing anything about it, himself, as it were, anticipates his death. Salieri is struck by the epiphany of the genius. And so that Mozart would not guess anything, he behaves like a conscious ally of a faceless visitor, he distracts Mozart with a joke and lulls his attention. Both, each in their own way, feel the breath of Mozart's approaching death. It seems that the characters are reading each other's thoughts. Indeed, it was today that Antonio Salieri's decision to poison Mozart became stronger, and he, as if anticipating his fate, asks:

Oh, is it true, Salieri,

That Beaumarchais poisoned someone?

Accusing the entire universe of injustice, Salieri comes to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe need to free humanity from Mozart:

i am chosen to

Stop, or we all died

The appearance of Mozart is not acceptable for Salieri - he is not jealous of Mozart's genius, he believes that Mozart is an "idle reveler", that he did not earn his paradise songs, he got them for free. Therefore, he exclaims:

there is no truth on earth.

But there is no truth - and higher.

Yes, he takes on the right to judge both heaven and earth. Salieri claims his own truth as the only one. Salieri commits the sin of Judas. And the scene in the Golden Lion tavern is like a symbolization of the Last Supper.

However, Mozart is attracted to Salieri. Mozart feels the fatal radiation emanating from him, and partly consciously, partly intuitively, he fights not only with his own, but also with his darkness, with every shadow of evil. We feel that the black person is not just a real person, we feel that it is also the black conscience of Salieri himself.

The choice of the Shakespearean hero, Hamlet, is also difficult. The prince's choice is not only ethical but also mystical. He believed the ghost, or rather, he confirmed the prince's suspicions. Testimonies of ghosts, spirits and other inhabitants the other world have never been considered either evidence or legal proof of someone's guilt or innocence. Claudius would have been acquitted if the court tried his case. But Hamlet's judgment is not like that. The prince judges not by written laws, but by the rule - blood for blood. He is ready to do anything to punish Claudius, his father's killer. Terrible is crime, but even more terrible is the veil of lies and hypocrisy under which it lurks.

You can smile, smile

And be a bastard. If not everywhere,

That is, for certain, in Denmark.

Such a bitter conclusion is made by Hamlet.

The prince's grief and his desire to fulfill his duty - to punish evil - outgrow the personal framework: he feels himself called upon not only to avenge Claudius for the death of his father, but to fight for outraged justice, against the shameless domination of lies and vice, to fight against the evil reigning in Denmark, with its "depraved century".

How is the relationship between a person carrying the burden of the "connection of times" and a society full of deception, betrayal, treason? How can you resist? how not to fall? Hamlet decides to close himself off from people, from society, lock his soul and put on a mask, a mask of madness. He must "connect the times" and feels that he lacks strength. He is angry with his own powerlessness and helplessness, he is alone surrounded by hundreds of people, he has no friends, but many enemies.

In addition, Hamlet is in love, but must hide his feelings from Ophelia, because she may turn out to be a weapon in the hands of enemies. Her father - Polonius and brother - Laertes convince the girl not to believe the vows of Hamlet in love, not to meet with him, to be prudent and careful. And the timid Ophelia agrees to be obedient to her father in everything.

In the poetic image of Ophelia, depicting her sorrowful fate, Shakespeare shows the hostility of the world, such as Claudius and Polonius, to simple and beautiful human feelings. Ophelia is a victim of a world of crime and lies, intrigue and deceit. She loves Hamlet very much, but at the same time is deeply attached to her father and believes in everything. Ofelia says that Hamlet is smart, charming, noble, but she herself is forced to admit that this is in the past for her:

What a charm the mind has perished!

Combination of knowledge, eloquence

And valor, our holiday, the color of hopes,

The legislator of tastes and decency,

Their mirror is all shattered. Everything, everything

If the people who should be closest are breaking the law, what can you expect from others? For this reason, Hamlet dramatically changes his attitude towards her. His love for Ophelia was sincere, but the example of his mother makes him draw a sad conclusion: women are too weak to withstand the rigors of life. In order to facilitate his break with Ophelia, Hamlet mocks her. He wants to show Ophelia that he is thoughtless and cruel - therefore, Ophelia will leave him. Hamlet condemns not only Ophelia, but all women. And Ophelia sincerely advises to get out of the vicious circle of court life in which she finds herself - "to go to a monastery." Hamlet refuses Ophelia also because this love can distract him from revenge, which is more important to him than passionate feelings.

Ophelia finds herself between two warring camps. She does not have so much strength to tear herself away from her father and brother, from the usual family nest and openly be near Hamlet. She is a submissive and obedient daughter of Polonius, who completely entrusts her fate and her secrets to him.

Innocent and meek, Ophelia cannot understand the meaning and significance of the struggle that is taking place in Elsinore, she believes in the madness of Hamlet and weakly agrees to become a "test instrument" in the hands of Polonius and Claudius. She is unable to endure the heavy blows of fate that fall on her, and dies like a flower crushed by a storm.

Hamlet is indirectly to blame for the death of Ophelia, but he is justified by the fact that he fought against evil in the name of sacred revenge.

If Hamlet's madness is just a mask, then Ophelia's madness arouses pity and pain in readers. The innocent Ophelia fell victim to the envy, cruelty and malice of society.

The theme of love and death, unhappy love is also raised in the tragedy "The Stone Guest" from the cycle of dramatic works "Little Tragedies" by Alexander Pushkin.

For The Stone Guest, Pushkin chose the plot of ancient Spanish legends and their famous hero. Don Juan, under the pen of Pushkin, appeared as the "poet" of love.

The dark Middle Ages are receding into the past, giving way to new era - early Renaissance.

The special tension, the brightness of love is set off by the close proximity to death, which gives a purely Spanish character to intimate feelings. In the love of the heroes, one can feel the harbinger of a disastrous end. Don Juan's love affairs are inseparable from the death of his rivals. Don Juan's date with Laura ends with the death of Carlos. Carlos prophesies death to the cavaliers of Laura. Don Juan meets Dona Anna at the cemetery, and his last meeting with her ends with the death of the hero. Life and death go side by side.

The feeling of a turning point in the Middle Ages is supported in the tragedy of Pushkin by the fact that the time is coming for the liberation of human feelings. Free passions burst out. The Middle Ages are still alive in the image of Carlos, the Monk, Dona Anna, who visits her husband's grave every day, hides her face and retired in her home. Leporello with his fear of higher powers. Don Juan also has a lot of old customs: he is still a loyal knight of the king and knows well that he goes against tradition, coveting the love of Dona Anna. But in general, Don Juan, like Laura, are people of the Renaissance. Free passions have awakened in them, they joyfully accept life, glorify its pleasures, recklessly indulge in them, do not know moral prohibitions, church and state regulations.

The change from one great era to another passes through the hearts of people. Don Juan is the enemy of Don Alvar and, therefore, his widow Dona Anna.

Love for the wife of the murdered Don Alvar and the need to love resurrected in Don Anna - such is the psychological collision, which becomes especially acute, also because Donna Anna, unaware of that, fell in love with her husband's killer. Before Dona Anna did not know love: she married Don Alvar at the insistence of her mother. The strength of the passion that gripped her is restrained by customs, but Dona Anna, carried away by love, responds to the call.

However, the true triumph of free feelings is captured by Pushkin in the images of Laura and Don Juan.

Don Juan is attractive for his cheerfulness, he is loving, overflowing with a thirst for sensual pleasures. Falling in love, he is "glad to embrace the whole world." Laura is sincerely and serenely open to love. She and Don Juan are linked by spiritual closeness. Laura is not afraid of anything. Dinner at Laura's is a feast of kindred spirits, among whom Carlos looks like a stranger. Don Juan also knows no heavenly or earthly fear. Enjoying, he plays both his own and someone else's life, he is always ready to justify himself and to blame the enemy.

However, the love of Pushkin's heroes, especially Laura and Don Guan, is not only free and unselfish, but also self-willed. With Laura, she is not controlled by any moral norms, and with Don Guan, she supplants all other spiritual doubts. This duality of the epoch itself - the ecstasy of earthly life, reliance on one's own strength, thirst for pleasure and at the same time daring self-will, contempt for all moral norms, disregard for freedom and even the life of another person, determines the originality of Pushkin's hero. Don Juan is ardent and cold, sincere and deceitful, passionate and cynical, courageous and calculating. He does not know the line between good and evil. Carrying away Don Anna, he says that he fell in love with her virtue. It "seems" to him that under the influence of a new love feeling he "was completely reborn." And at the same time the hero remains the same Don Juan, "the improviser of a love song." Don Juan is ruined not by atheism and love affairs, but by the "cruel age" and the willfulness inherent in the hero.

Already in the scene with Laura, kissing his girlfriend in front of the dead Carlos, he, of course, blasphemes. Even Laura, rushing to Don Juan, catches herself.

Inviting the statue of the commander on his love date, he is defiantly insolent. Human ethics, nobility requires leaving the dead man alone. Don Juan first mocks the dead, and then, not content with the order of the servant, he himself goes to the monument of the Commander and repeats his fantastic invitation.

The date of love in the last, fourth scene, again, as in the scene with Laura, takes place with the dead. After the unexpected consent of the statue, Don Juan is confused for the first time, for the first time he feels the power of fatal forces and involuntarily exclaims an exclamation: "Oh God!"

The invitation to the statue cannot be interpreted unambiguously. Don Alvar became a silent watchdog shadow over Dona Anna's feelings. He asserted his rights over her, first during life - with money, and then after death - with customs sanctified by religion. Don Juan wants to free Don Anna from the terrible shackles, going against the religious fanaticism and hypocrisy that Don Alvar personifies. But, inviting the commander killed by him to guard the love meeting with his widow, Don Juan also reveals his moral inferiority. The noble, knightly principle that lives in Don Juan is inseparable from the inhuman.

Don Guan is a knight who is ready to stand up for his personal dignity, honor, freedom, feelings.

However, Don Juan treats his beloved as a means to satisfy a soul thirsty for pleasure. Its goal is to assert oneself through sensual pleasures, devoid of ethical principles.

Don Juan falls not from the hand of Don Alvar, but from the hand of fate itself, punishing the one who transgressed human laws. The statue of the Commander represents not only the old world, but also the highest justice.

In Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" the highest justice is administered by the main character... Throughout the play, the playwright focuses on Hamlet central attention. Hamlet reflects the attempts of enemies to penetrate into his plans, tears off the masks from opponents. The King's Dastardly Headphones Revealed: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Behind their assurances of friendship, the prince discovers lies and hypocrisy. He becomes more and more convinced of the corruption reigning in the circle:

Yes sir. To be honest - in our times, means to be the only one out of ten thousand.

These words are uttered by Hamlet in a conversation with Polonius.

In the famous monologue "To be or not to be" (in the first scene of the third act) all the deepening doubts and thoughts of Hamlet are revealed with special force, and at the same time his attitude towards his "age" is expressed. He sees the monstrous injustice and evil that reigns in society:

who would bear the humiliation of the century,

Oppressor's lie, nobles

Arrogance, rejected feeling

A slow judgment and above all

Taunts of the unworthy at the worthy

But the prince, at the same time, feels that his beautiful determination to enter into confrontation with the evil of the world "is withering under a touch of pale thought." And this unresolved fundamental questions of being and the impossibility of resolving them by his lonely struggle lead him to a painful split. The immediate task - to kill Claudius - seems to grow dim, steps aside in front of more important and broader issues of life, and Hamlet hesitates to accomplish revenge.

One of the most tense moments of the tragedy is the scene of Hamlet's conversation with his mother. Thinking that the king overhears them behind the carpet, Hamlet stabs Polonius hiding there with his sword.

The atmosphere in the castle becomes more and more tense, the action moves faster and faster towards the denouement. The death of Polonius at the hands of Hamlet entails the madness and death of Ophelia.

The last (fifth) action of the tragedy opens with a scene in the cemetery. Again the contrasts of the sublime and the low, tragic and funny, so characteristic of Shakespeare: jokes and funny songs of gravediggers, accustomed to their craft, indifferently throwing skulls out of the ground, and then - gloomy thoughts of Hamlet.

The same contrasts of tragedy and irony can be seen in one of Pushkin's "Little Tragedies".

The problems of the meaning of life, personal dignity and honor, human responsibility in the face of a formidable and tragic necessity were posed in the tragedy "A Feast in Time of Plague".

The situation in it is deliberately conditional. Plague is a natural disaster that threatens human life. People are unable to either fight it or escape from it. They do not fight or save themselves. They are doomed and know they will die.

Socio-historical examples recede into the background in the tragedy. The point is not in them, but in how people behave in tragic circumstances, which they oppose to the fear of death. Will base, cruel instincts emerge, will panic overtake them, will they humbly bow their heads, or will they meet the "loneliness, the supreme hour" with courage and simplicity?

The characters of the tragedy, excluding the Priest, arrange a feast during the plague. People close to them are dying, a cart with corpses is passing by, and they are feasting.

The tragic situation was set from the very beginning, but its outcome is far from a foregone conclusion.

Unlike other tragedies, the external dramatic action is weakened even more in "Feast in the Time of the Plague". The heroes give monologues, sing songs, conduct a dialogue, but do not commit any actions that can change the situation. The drama is transferred to the motives of their behavior.

And here it turns out that the reasons that brought the participants to the feast are profoundly different. A feast for Young man - a means of oblivion. Louise came to the feast for fear of being alone. Only Mary and Valsingam find strength to confront the raging elements.

Only Valsingam realizes the urgency of the situation and boldly challenges death. In the solemn and tragic hymn of the Chairman, a person opposes his will to death and danger. The more threatening the blows of fate, the more fierce the resistance to it. It is not death that glorifies Pushkin in the guise of Winter and the Plague, but the ability and readiness of a person to confront. The challenge to the blind elements brings a person to enjoy his power and puts him on a par with them.

Man, as it were, overcomes his earthly existence and enjoys his power:

There is rapture in battle

And the dark abyss at the edge,

And in a raging ocean

Amid the formidable waves and stormy darkness,

And in the Arabian hurricane

And in the whiff of the Plague.

In the fateful moments of danger, the "mortal heart" acquires "immortality, perhaps a pledge." The Valsingham song is a hymn of a fearless person, a glorification of the heroism of a lonely person.

At the same time, Pushkin put the hymn into the mouth of a "fallen spirit". Like Mary, the Chairman repents of the arrangement of the blasphemous feast ("Oh, if only this sight could be hidden from the eyes of the immortals!"). Valsingham is far from the winner as he appeared in the hymn. His mind is defeated. It is not for nothing that he sings: "Let us drown the merrily minds," and then returns to the same thought in his answer to the Priest:

i'm kept here

Despair, terrible memory,

Consciousness of my iniquity,

And the horror of that dead emptiness

I meet in my house -

And with the news of these frantic fun,

And with the graceful poison of this cup,

And caresses (forgive me, Lord) -

Lost but sweet creature

The priest bows his head to the chairman's grief, but appeals to his conscience. There is a simple and wise truth in his words. The feast breaks the mourning for the dead, "confuses" the "silence of the coffins." It is contrary to custom. The priest, demanding respect for the memory of the dead, seeks to lead the feasting on the path of religious humility, repeating in part Mary's song:

Break the monstrous feast when

Do you wish to meet in heaven

Lost beloved souls.

He insists on adhering to traditional moral standards:

Go to your homes!

And although the Priest does not achieve success with his sermons and incantations, still Valsingam admits his "lawlessness". There is something in the very behavior of the Priest that makes the Chairman think.

Singing the heroism of loneliness, contempt for death, a dignified death, the Chairman, together with other participants in the feast, fenced off from the common national misfortune, while the Priest, not caring for himself, strengthens the spirit in the dying. He is among them.

However, the position of the Priest does not negate the high personal heroism of Valsingham. A priest goes to people in the name of saving their souls, calming their conscience, in order to alleviate suffering in heaven. Valsingam praises the spiritual courage of an earthly person who does not want to humbly meet death and does not need outside encouragement, finding strength in himself. The personal heroism of the Chairman, thus, is directed at himself and the feasting, and the Priest understands the feat and meaning of human life as an unaccountable service to the people in the days of disaster. Valsingam defends the inner capabilities of a person. The priest relies on faithfulness to custom. The tragedy lies in the fact that the Chairman's heroism is deprived of sacrifice for the sake of people, and the humane selflessness of the Priest denies the personal spiritual courage of ordinary mortals and therefore replaces it with the preaching of humility and the authority of religion.

Pushkin understood that overcoming this contradiction was impossible in the conditions of his day, but that such a task was put forward by the very course of history. Pushkin did not know when and in what form mankind will achieve the unity of personal aspirations and common interests, but he trusted the flow of life and left this contradiction unresolved. He also relied on the power of the human mind, therefore, like many works of the 30s, "A Feast in a Time of Plague" is directed to the future.

The remark that concludes "A Feast in Time of Plague" - "The Chairman remains immersed in deep thoughtfulness" - clarifies the meaning of Pushkin's tragedy. The deep thoughtfulness of Walsingham is both a consciousness of spiritual instability and loss, and reflection on one's own behavior, and reflections on how to bridge the gap between self-contained heroism and courageous dedication to humanity.

The chairman no longer participates in the feast, but his mind is awakened.

With the open finale of the last play, which closes the cycle, Pushkin appeals to a bright consciousness, to its triumph, to the moral responsibility of people before themselves and the world.

Pushkin's "Little Tragedies" captured deep moral, psychological, philosophical, socio-historical shifts in the arduous path of mankind. The characters of "Little Tragedies", with the exception of the genius Mozart, are defeated, becoming victims of the temptations, temptations of the century and their passions. As a monument to the life-giving power of art, the inspired Mozart rises among them, whose life-loving spirituality is akin to his great sculptor.

In Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" in the entire system of characters' images, and especially in the image of Hamlet himself, the crisis that the progressive humanistic thought of England experienced at the beginning of the 17th century found expression. Shakespeare put many of his cherished thoughts and feelings into the mouth of Hamlet, but at the same time the author cannot be identified with his hero. Showing the frustration and despair of Hamlet, Shakespeare himself is far from desperate pessimism. He understands the difficulties of fighting evil in the present, and yet he believes in the future, in the fact that one day liberation from the fetters of lies and oppression of man by man will come. Let at the cost of bloody sacrifices, but truth and justice must prevail - this is the meaning of the denouement of the tragedy.

In the image of the main character, Hamlet, we see a humanist of the Renaissance, the bearer of the advanced ideals of his time. But his faith in life and man, his best dreams perish when he comes face to face with the prison world, where the "jesters on the throne" rage, where liars, detractors and murderers thrive, wearing a mask of complacency. The tragedy of the death of lofty illusions, the inner discord caused by the sense of hopelessness of the lonely struggle to rectify society, and at the same time the deepening exposure of lies and injustice, the growing protest - all this constitutes the pathos of the tragedy "Hamlet", its ideological core.

7. THE HUMANISM OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

It is interesting that almost at the same time in England, where national statehood had already taken place, a centralized power was established, William Shakespeare (1564-1616), the greatest humanist of the Late Renaissance, artistically comprehends the contradictoriness, tragedy of the already established relations "man-society-state" ...

In Shakespeare's tragedies (King Lear, Macbeth, etc.), explicitly or not, there is always a natural cosmos, which carries a completely opposite semantic load than Montaigne's. This cosmos reflects a vague feeling that above the personal life, the consciousness of a "natural" person, there is still some kind of all-determining world, within which the heroes act. This world of transpersonal will is the sphere of social and state relations, which subordinate without a trace the "natural" person to the standards of the state and make him a "state person".

The key to Shakespeare's heroes is that their life takes place in two planes: personal ("natural individuality") and nationwide (social and civil). However, the heroes do not distinguish between these worlds: their subjectivity shakes the foundations of the world, even if they act in the circle of their own "natural" motives. The "core" of Shakespeare's tragedies is hidden in the contradictory unity of the individual and the nation-wide. For example, in Othello, the hero's personal world is shrouded in the veils of superhuman cosmic forces. Othello, who committed the crime, begins to think that "now the moon and sun will be completely darkened, the earth will shake with horror." This figurative row sets off the faceless, social and state that invades the hero's fate.

Othello is an ingeniously guessed image of a person who is in a consistent (seemingly) unity of his own naturalness and sociality, "statehood, citizenship." Othello is a "natural" person (this is reinforced by the fact that he is a Moor), who has the right to love, hate, be gentle, and stand up for personal insult inflicted. At the same time, he is endowed with a "set" of certain rights and obligations. In his soul, the norms of two spheres of life collided - and he died.

The murder scene of Desdemona is far from the culmination of the tragedy, as it is sometimes portrayed in a bad theater. The tragedy is in the scene of suicide. After finding out that Desdemona is innocent, Othello is still strong in spirit to live, and demands from those around him that he should not be prevented from leaving freely. However, everything collapses when Othello hears that the republic deprives him of his honor, that he is a prisoner and deprived of power. It is impossible to live any longer. He could not bear the dishonor from the state. Othello dies not as a murderer of his wife (after all, he "proceeded from honor"), but as a man who, in defense of his personal honor, lost the honor of a citizen. Being in two areas of ethical life is the source and power of the tragic in the fate of Othello.

At the close of the Renaissance, Shakespeare showed the existing rift between personal "natural" and social life. And at the same time he showed that no one is given to cut the inner connection between these two spheres of life of the same person - death is inevitable. But then how to live? A person turns out to be a character in search of an author.

CONCLUSION

Concluding the consideration of the philosophical quests of the Renaissance, it is necessary to note the ambiguity of assessments of its heritage. Despite the general recognition of the uniqueness of the Renaissance culture as a whole, this period for a long time was not considered original in the development of philosophy and, therefore, worthy of being singled out as an independent stage of philosophical thought. However, the duality and contradictoriness of the philosophical thinking of this time should not diminish its importance for the subsequent development of philosophy, call into question the merits of the Renaissance thinkers in overcoming medieval scholasticism and creating the foundations of modern philosophy.

The English philosopher and moralist A. Shaftesbury (1671 - 1713) once remarked: any conflict between two spheres of life indicates either that society is imperfect, or that man is imperfect in himself.

The revival took root in the dualism of the individual and the social-state, the empirical and the ideal, the emotional and the rational. The 17th century, on the basis of their opposition and analysis, tries to decide what is defining in a person.

The Renaissance is one of the most fruitful stages of development european history... Revival is a point of choice in the historical process, when new ways of intellectual and civilizational development are sought. Thinkers, on the one hand, return to the classical ancient heritage in a more complete volume than was the case in medieval culture, and on the other hand, they open up a new world of man and nature.

So, the Renaissance, or the Renaissance, is an era in the life of mankind, marked by a colossal rise of art and science. The art of the Renaissance, which arose on the basis of humanism - the current of social thought, proclaiming a person the highest value of life. In art, the main theme has become a beautiful, harmoniously developed person with unlimited spiritual and creative potential. The art of the Renaissance laid the foundations of the European culture of the modern era, radically changed all the main types of art. In architecture, creatively revised principles of the ancient order system were established, new types of public buildings were formed. Painting was enriched with linear and aerial perspective, knowledge of the anatomy and proportions of the human body. The earthly content penetrated the traditional religious themes of works of art. Interest in ancient mythology, history, everyday life scenes, landscape, and portrait has increased. Along with the monumental wall paintings decorating architectural structures, painting appeared, painting appeared oil paints... The first place in art was taken by the creative individuality of the artist, as a rule, a universally gifted personality.

In the art of the Renaissance, the paths of scientific and artistic comprehension of the world and man were closely intertwined. Its cognitive meaning was inextricably linked with sublime poetic beauty; in its striving for naturalness, it did not descend to petty everyday life. Art has become a universal spiritual need.

The Renaissance is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful eras in human history.

LITERATURE

1. Gurevich P.S. Human Philosophy Part 1 - M: RAN, 2005

2. Losev A.F. "Aesthetics of Renaissance". - M, 2006

3. Motroshilova N.V. The birth and development of philosophical ideas. M., 2004

4. Pico della Mirandola. Speech about the dignity of man // Man. M., 2003

5. Philosophy. A.G. Spirkin. Publishing house "Gardariki", 2006

6. Philosophy. Tutorial... I. M. Nevleva. Publishing house "Russian Business Literature", 2006

7. Bruno J. Dialogues. M., 1949

8. Pico della Mirandola J. Speech about human dignity. // Aesthetics of the Renaissance. M., 1981

9. Montaigne M. Experiments. Book. I. M. 1987

10. Montaigne M. Experiments. Book. III. M. 1987

11. Montaigne M. Experiments. Book. I. M. 1987

Gurevich P.S. Philosophy of Man Part 1 - M: RAS, 2005, p. 11

Losev A.F. "Aesthetics of Renaissance". - M, 2006, p. 16

Motroshilova N.V. The birth and development of philosophical ideas. M., 2004, p. 29

Gurevich P.S. Philosophy of Man Part 1 - M: RAS, 2005, p.26

Losev A.F. "Aesthetics of Renaissance". - M, 2006, p. 25

Motroshilova N.V. The birth and development of philosophical ideas. M., 2004, p. 41

Synergetics (from the Greek sinergos - acting together) is the theory of self-organization that arose in the 70s of the XX century (I. Prigogine, G. Hagen). He studies the processes of transition of open non-equilibrium systems from less to more ordered forms of organization, from chaos to order. In theology, the term "synergy" is used, which is understood as the cooperation of man with God in the creation of salvation.

Gurevich P.S. Philosophy of Man Part 1 - M: RAS, 2005, p. 29

Bruno J. Dialogues. M., 1949.S. 291.

Pico della Mirandola J. Speech on human dignity. // Aesthetics of the Renaissance. M., 1981.S. 249.

Pico della Mirandola J. Speech on human dignity. // Aesthetics of the Renaissance. M., 1981.S. 250.

Losev A.F. "Aesthetics of Renaissance". - M, 2006, p.54

Montaigne M. Experiments. Book one. M.-L., 1954.S. 194, 203, 205, 201, 205.

Motroshilova N.V. The birth and development of philosophical ideas. M., 2004, p. 64

Motroshilova N.V. The birth and development of philosophical ideas. M., 2004, p. 68

Montaigne M. Experiments. Book. I. P. 195.

Montaigne M. Experiments. Book. III. P. 291.

Philosophy. A.G. Spirkin. Publishing house "Gardariki", 2006, p.36

Philosophy. Tutorial. I. M. Nevleva. Publishing house "Russian Business Literature", 2006, p.57

Montaigne M. Experiments. Book. I, p. 204.

Philosophy. A.G. Spirkin. Publishing house "Gardariki", 2006, p.68

Became one of the sources of Giordano Bruno's teachings about the infinity of the universe. The philosophical and theological views of Nikolai Kuzansky can serve as a vivid example of the cardinal property of the entire philosophy of the Renaissance - the desire to reconcile various scientific and religious trends in the mainstream of one teaching. In science, it is noted that the development of Kuzants' worldview was influenced by the ancient teachings ...

Relations, first of all, in the sphere of economics, it was during this period that science developed, relations between church and state changed, the ideology of humanism was formed. 2 The main features of the philosophy of the Renaissance 2.1 Humanism - the rise of man If in medieval society corporate and class ties between people were very strong, and medieval man was perceived all the more valuable as ...

Prepared the formation of experimental mathematical science and mechanistic materialism in the XYII - XYIII centuries. 3. The main directions of development of Western European philosophy in the Renaissance The main directions of the philosophy of the Renaissance include the following directions: humanistic, natural philosophical and socio-political. Humanistic direction. Renaissance humanism - ...

The heyday of English drama began in the late 1580s, when a galaxy of writers, now called "university minds", appeared: Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), Thomas Kid (1558-1594), Robert Green (c. 1560-1592), John Lily (c. 1554-1606) and several others. Milestones marking the beginning of this heyday were two tragedies - "Tamerlane the Great" (1587) by K. Marlo and "Spanish tragedy" by T. Cdda (c. 1587). The first marked the beginning of a bloody drama, the second - the genre of tragedies of revenge.

There is every reason to believe that Shakespeare began his dramatic activity ca. 1590. In the first period of creativity, he created a number of bloody historical dramas - the trilogy "Henry VI" and "Richard III" and the tragedy of revenge "Titus Andronicus". Shakespeare's first comedies "The Comedy of Errors" and "The Taming of the Shrew" were distinguished by a rather crude comic, close to farces.

In 1593-1594, a turning point was outlined. Although Shakespeare never gave up farce and clownery, in general his new comedies "Two Veronese", "A Midsummer Night's Dream", "The Merchant of Venice", "Much Ado About Nothing", "As You Like It", "Twelfth Night" , The Windsor Risers are distinguished by their subtle humor. They are dominated by adventurous motives and the theme of love.

Most of the historical plays of this period are colored by the belief in the triumph of the best principles in state life, which is especially noticeable in the three chronicle plays - "Henry IV" (two parts) and "Henry V". Although in them an indispensable element of the action is the dramatic struggle between the feudal lords, they have a fair amount of humor. It is in "Henry IV" that the image of Falstaff appears - a masterpiece of Shakespeare's comic.

The only tragedy of this period, which lasts until the end of the 16th century, is Romeo and Juliet (1595). Its action is imbued with deep lyricism, and even the death of young heroes does not make this tragedy hopeless. Although Romeo and Juliet die, a reconciliation of the warring families of Montagues and Capulet takes place over their corpses, love wins a moral victory over the world of evil.

The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet embodies Shakespeare's optimism in the second period. In the comedies and the only tragedy of these years, humanity triumphs over the bad principles of life.

At the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries, a new turning point takes place in Shakespeare's mindset. The first signs of it are felt in the historical tragedy Julius Caesar (1599). Her true hero, however, is not a great commander, but another Roman figure - Brutus, the sworn enemy of tyranny. He is involved in a conspiracy against Caesar, seeking sole despotic power, and participates in his murder. Caesar's adherents, and first of all Mark Antony, deceive the people with demagogic speeches, the Romans expel Brutus. The noble hero is defeated and commits suicide. Victory goes to the supporters of tyranny. The tragedy is that the people (namely, they play a decisive role in this tragedy) have not matured to understand who are their true and who are their imaginary friends. Historical conditions were unfavorable for those who wanted to assert noble ideals in life, and this is expressed in Julia Caesar.

Like other representatives of the new worldview, Shakespeare believed that the best beginnings should triumph over evil. However, he and his generation had to make sure that life took a different path. For three centuries European humanism developed, preaching the need to reorganize life on new, more humane principles. It would be time to see the consequences of this. Instead, more and more negative features of bourgeois development appeared in all aspects of life. The all-destructive power of gold was added to the remnants of the former feudal-monarchical injustices.

Shakespeare felt with all his heart that humanistic ideals could not be realized in life. This was expressed in Sonnet 66. Although his translations by S. Marshak and V. Pasternak are more famous, here is another version:

* I call death, I can’t look anymore,
* How a worthy husband perishes in poverty,
* A villain lives in beauty and beauty;
* How the trust of pure souls tramples,
* How chastity is threatened with shame,
* How honors are given to scoundrels,
* How power falls before the impudent gaze,
* How a rogue triumphs everywhere in life,
* How arbitrariness mocks at art,
* How thoughtlessness rules the mind,
* As in the clutches of evil languishes painfully
* All that we call good.
* If not for you, my love, it would be long ago
* I was looking for a rest under the shadow of a coffin.
* Translation by O. Rumer

Probably, the sonnet was written in the late 1590s, when a turning point in Shakespeare's mind began, which led to the creation of the tragedy Hamlet. It was created, apparently, in 1600-1601. Already in 1603, the first edition of the tragedy appeared. It was released without the permission of the author and the theater in which the play was staged, and was called a quarto of 1603.

Chapter vii

Scientific and philosophical ideas Renaissance in Shakespeare's worldview. - Three cultural types: Henry V, Falstaff and Hamlet. - Henry V. - Falstaff.

We know how hotly and actively Shakespeare responded to the poetry of the Renaissance, but how did he react to her thought? Indeed, in addition to Boccaccio, Petrarch, Rabelais, the same era produced Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Montaigne, Bacon. Shakespeare was even born the same year as Galileo; Bruno lived in London for about two years from 1583 and was very popular in secular and literary societies. The volume of Montaigne's works was preserved as if with an inscription by Shakespeare, and Bacon created his philosophy, one might say, alongside Shakespeare the playwright. Researchers have long discovered and continue to discover in his work many echoes of the scientific Renaissance, especially from the works of Bruno and Montaigne. But we are not interested in particulars, but in the general structure of Shakespeare's thought. Did Petrarch's leading rival stand at the same height as the reader of philosophers?

One can argue about certain scientific views of Shakespeare. In our opinion, for example, the best German experts on Shakespeare are wrong, who deny the poet's faith in the new astronomical system. Hamlet's obviously mocking letter to Ophelia proves nothing, and Ulysses' speech in Troilus and Cressida about the subordination of the planets to the Sun is by no means a defense of Ptolemy. On the other hand, one can doubt that Shakespeare clearly understood the law of blood circulation, announced by Harvey only two years after the death of the poet. Even more dubious is Shakespeare's idea of \u200b\u200bgravity. But the conclusions of psychiatrists are quite reliable. Shakespeare, in his views on the mentally ill, in his amazingly accurate knowledge of ailments, was two centuries ahead of his contemporaries. There was still a deep conviction in the wiles of Satan, and the sick were subjected to the most severe tortures; the poet, on the other hand, was able to unravel the soil and causes of diseases and even pointed to healing, humane means. Ophelia, Lady Macbeth, King Lear are immortal monuments of brilliant penetration into the most complex secrets of nature and truly cultural ideas about suffering humanity ...

Undoubtedly, the poet on himself carried out the most important conquest of the new time, marked by the development of free thought, the victory of personal experience over legends and prejudices. And the implementation was quite conscious. Richard II, deposed from the throne, considers the discord between him, the king, and the demands of the times as one of the reasons for his fall. Subsequently, Coriolanus will express even more energetically the ideas of inevitable and unconditionally legitimate progress:

If we obeyed the custom in everything, no one would dare to sweep the dust of antiquity, but the truth would forever Sit behind the mountains of delusions!

And here the patrician expresses the truth not for the joy of arrogant self-will, but in the name of personal dignity and noble independence from the habits and demands of the crowd.

But the sources of personal freedom are thought, enlightenment, knowledge of life and nature, and Shakespeare zealously defends all these foundations of civilization:

In learning is the power by which we soar to heaven, In ignorance is God's curse.

This is what one of the heroes of the second part of Henry VI says, and we do not know if these words exactly belong to Shakespeare; but they are incessantly confirmed by the undoubtedly genuine thoughts of the poet in other plays. Father Francis calls "experience" a "companion of science" (Much Ado About Nothing), and other heroes carefully emphasize the unreliability of the old medieval order. Richard II and the Venetian Antonio are unanimous about the abuses of the interpretation of Holy Scripture that flourished in the Catholic kingdom. The king is embarrassed by the opposite conclusions that thought can draw from the texts. Antonio, in response to Shylock's biblical account of usury, points to the art of even villains to hide behind sacred authority. The poet is convinced that dialectics and malicious intent will be able to "sanctify and spice up any delusion with texts, and cover up with external adornment".

And he shows the truth of this thought by life example - in an eloquent scene at the burial of Ophelia.

Obviously, Shakespeare fully assimilated the basic ideas of the philosophical and critical teachings of his era, and the speeches of his characters often breathe the energy of Luther's denunciations. But the great preacher of the Reformation, who shook the power of tradition, did not find immediate satisfaction in his personal thought. On the contrary, the new man had to redeem his liberation with the most severe torments of doubt and endless research. Luther at times fell into despair, experienced the real suffering of Prometheus in search of one clear, unshakable truth. The same inheritance went to his descendants. And Shakespeare knows how much enticing charm, but also the thorns lurk in independent mental work - and the world motive of Hamlet begins to sound even in Richard's meditation:

Thoughts are the same people; Like them, they cannot find peace or be satisfied with themselves in any way.

It is clear that the poet will sincerely and mercilessly rise up against all fanaticism - theoretical, moral and religious. He will expose to ridicule and punishment of frivolous or hypocritical enemies of the natural laws of human nature, he will destroy puritan hypocrisy and intolerance, and one of his merry heroes will express the meaning of this humane and liberation struggle in this way: "Or do you think - because you are virtuous, this will not happen in the world, no pies, no wine? " (Twelfth Night).

Thanks to the breadth of his outlook, Shakespeare was able to embrace in his work the main types of different cultural epochs and to fulfill the high purpose of art, indicated by Hamlet, - to embody his age and his time in their true features. He had to act in the transition of an old life to a new path. He saw and personally experienced the collision of the progressive principles of the Reformation and Renaissance with the customs and authorities of the Middle Ages. Before his eyes, the rapid development of liberated nature and thought, feelings and mind was taking place; he himself resolutely took the side of freedom and progress. From the very first works, he began to defend the new and after a while he captured a number of psychological types that embody various historical trends of the era. One of them, a type of medieval man. Other, brightest, extreme representatives of the two main ideas of the Renaissance: free natural instincts and free critical thought. All three heroes are depicted with great care and strength, but not all of them are equally simple and accessible in terms of psychological composition. The primacy in clarity and integrity belongs, of course, to the hero of antiquity.

Prince Gal, later King Henry V, is one of the most popular figures in English dramatic chronicles, and Shakespeare, for example, undoubtedly used one of the early plays - The Glorious Victories of Henry V. But for us the question of actual borrowing is again not essential, psychology is always original the property of our poet, and he knows how to raise a historical person to the height of a common human type. The moral development of Henry, his nature, his vices and talents - all this is a perfect reflection of the Middle Ages, a short but complete history of an entire period of human culture, removed from the scene by the people of the Renaissance.

Prince Gal - a perfectly healthy, normal young man - uses youth with all the power and ardor of Anglo-Saxon blood. He is an embodied contrast to the profound, but naive philosopher - the King of Navarre and consistently reproduces the everyday wisdom of the poet, scattered in comedies.

He has no intention of raping his nature with deliberate art and a deliberate school of morality. He is also completely alien to the anxiety of abstract thought; for him, as for a medieval man, all higher questions are resolved by those who are supposed to be in charge. He carelessly and without philosophizing slyly takes life as it is given, does not make ideal and impossible demands on it. But an innately balanced, full-bodied nature will not wither and will not wobble in a whirlwind of pleasure. And the prince from the experiences of his youth will not endure either disappointment or a decline in moral strength. The experiments will only be a manifestation of a powerful physical organism. They are not so much the result of frivolity and thirst for pleasure, as an excess of blood and energy. The prince has nothing to spend this surplus on: the father, suspicious and autocratic, does not allow him to participate in state affairs, - the son struggles in the tavern and plays the role of the king with Falstaff, sometimes without giving up much more responsible fun. But the moral element and organic common sense of the prince are unshakable. They make a brilliant young man out of the heir to the throne; out of the king they will create the wisest and most popular ruler. The prince is aware of his hobbies at every moment, and we believe his promise to appear later like the sun, only temporarily covered by "despicable clouds." This is not only strength, but also its deep consciousness, and, consequently, firmness and confidence in actions, proud modesty and restrained, unqualified, but in no way invincible nobility. And we see how Prince Gal, Falstaff's drinking companion, is transformed into the Prince of Wales and a brave warrior. We are witnessing an amazing scene of a duel between a born and humble hero and the brilliant knight Percy: how much valor and calm power, and so few words and effect! The Prince even surrenders the glory of his victory to Falstaff without question. The war was over, and the prince was again a prankster and a carousel. Falstaff is unable to understand the secrets of this transformation; Henry's simple but morally powerful psychology is a mystery to him, and when the prince decides to "bury all the old vices in the grave with his father" and appear worthy of power and throne, Sir John sees no meaning in a completely natural history. Meanwhile, the stormy youth even for Henry the Emperor was not in vain. He personally got to know the life of the common people, the hopes and soul of the last of his subjects; on the throne, he will be the most national and practical-knowledgeable ruler. In his youth, he was not a dreamer - now he will not be an idealist, a creator of broad political plans; all his activities are inextricably linked with the current reality, without the slightest interference of theories and ideas. He is the efficient master of a huge state house with all the advantages and disadvantages of an exclusively practical mind; the same yeoman, soldier, only in the most extensive field. The poet depicts his touching involvement with simple soldiers, his rare ability to come close to their life and the moral world, and it is in the mouth of Henry V that he puts his enthusiastic speech to the English villagers. Finally, - this is a one-of-a-kind scene - we see the King's declaration of love to the princess, by no means more cunning and graceful than the novel of any English sailor!

Such is an ideal person of the old era, organically strong, spiritually uncomplicated, directly intelligent and chivalrous, in general, whole and happy with his wholeness. New trends have brought to life incomparably more complex natures, and this complexity is the deeper, the more noble the trend. The simplest and most accessible ideal of the Renaissance is freedom of feeling, unlimited epicureanism, extreme opposition to the medieval oppression of the flesh and the denial of the earth. This opposition was not slow to create its own philosophy and freedom of instincts to establish on ideological foundations. They are also known to the heroines of Boccaccio, and the reasoning of one of them is especially interesting for us. We have to deal, apparently, with the most exceptional example of depravity and unprincipledness, and yet we hear the distant echoes of these horrors in the most graceful poet of the Italian Renaissance.

A lady comes to an experienced woman to ask for help in some loving and not particularly moral enterprise. She immediately agrees and even rushes to refute in advance any objections of strict moralists.

"My daughter, the Lord knows - and He knows everything - that you will do very well. Even if you had not done this for some reason, you, like any young woman, should have done so in order not to lose the time of youth, because for a person with intelligence there is no sorrow higher than the consciousness that he has missed the time. And what the hell are we good for when we grow old, if not to guard the ash by the fire ... "

The author himself unconditionally approves of this philosophy and, having told this or that love story, often very reprehensible in the generally accepted moral view, ends with a prayer to the Lord, "that He, by His holy mercy, would lead" to the happiness just described, and him, the narrator, and "everything Christian souls who desire it. "

Naturally, the heroines of Boccaccio honor Cupid "with God on an equal footing" and for this "devotion" count on bliss even in the future life ...

Now imagine that such a "religion" gets into the hearts and minds of people of incomparably more powerful temperaments and abundant physical strength than Italian ladies - it gets to the sons of a nation that for centuries has spawned a huge number of heroic figures, who considered Norfolk, Ghent to be an ordinary phenomenon in their family. , even Richards ...

Cupid here will inevitably turn into a deity of the most frank and by no means elegant and not poetic sensuality, longing for the "flying hour" will become a frenzied scream and an insane indomitable pursuit of the gross sins of the mortal body, all veils and tricks will disappear - there will be only one defiant and often cynical passion ... Falstaff is the most typical English embodiment of the physical ideal of the Renaissance. He is frankly depraved, cynically unprincipled, an obedient servant of his belly. And in all these vices he is only an extreme and at the same time, in English, an integral and consistent spokesman for the practice and morality of the Renaissance. He lacks the natural rights of human nature to love, earthly happiness, little simple freedom of feeling - he needs an orgy, a rebellion, a whole storm of instincts, just as the British of the Middle Ages needed uprisings, civil strife - for the "movement of blood and juices of life", according to apt the explanation of an eyewitness, the Bishop of York. It is not enough for Falstaff to destroy pedantry, scholasticism, scientific theories that disfigure the natural course of life - he will go against everything that is not material and not sensible in general, and will reject in general any concepts and ideas: honor, conscience, truth. He will not confine himself to recognizing the rights of "pies and wine" - he will only fill his existence with them, just as the feeling of love will reduce to corrupt depravity. In a word, he is just as much a fanatic of new views as previously created by scholasticism and asceticism. This is the opposite pole for Malvolio and even more "virtuous" people, for those very Puritans who, under Shakespeare, rattled curses even on poetry and theater.

All other traits of his psychology follow from the basic position of Falstaff, the most selfless son of the Renaissance. Falstaff is a coward because he values \u200b\u200blife here too much; to gray hair considers himself a youth, because youth is the highest blessing for such a "wise man"; finally, Falstaff is extraordinarily gifted and original. These properties are developed by the poet with the same force as the depressing morality of the hero, and they hide the secret of the strange attraction that surrounds Falstaff's personality.

The fact is that Falstaff is still a product of a liberating, progressive movement. True, he brought completely legitimate and healthy aspirations to absurdity and ugliness, but the original seed could not disappear without a trace. Falstaff is a representative of the natural and humane in comparison with the "virtuous" Malvolio. For Falstaff - life and light, on the side of his enemies - moral death and darkness of slavery or hypocrisy. And, undoubtedly, Shakespeare, who knew the modern "saints" so closely, involuntarily had to have a certain sympathy for his sinner, in any case, condescendingly look at the Falstafiada alongside fanaticism.

And he rewarded Falstaff with a brilliant gift of wit, gaiety, told him the ability to captivate others and seriously tie them to him. He reached the point that we feel sorry for the great sinner when the king rejects and punishes him, we sympathize with the simple but heartfelt story of his death and understand the tears of Falstaff's friends and servants ... This man, who has absorbed all the scum (Sediment, thick that has fallen to the bottom, settled, standing out from a turbid liquid (V. Dahl's Dictionary).) of his time, also borrowed the spark of his genius - and it, like gold, does not completely lose either its brilliance or value.

The poet insistently wanted to show that he was creating exactly one of the types of his era. Already in the comedy The End - the crown of the case was felt the approaching breath of the epic. Password is rewarded with many of Falstaff's traits — boastfulness, cowardice, and his attitude toward the count is reminiscent of Falstaff's "friendship" with the prince. But Parola can be successfully tied to the type of a boastful warrior in an old comedy: he is just an impudent and pathetic fanfare, there is no trace of Jack's incomparable "philosophy", his inexhaustible humor and ingenious resourcefulness in him. The password is beyond time and space, Falstaff is an English knight of the 16th century. Internal and external wars completely destroyed many noble families and ruined even more noble estates. The old chivalry fell into decay - both morally and materially - and whiled away life among all sorts of unseemly deeds and tricks: in lucky cases, profitable marriage alliances with plebeian families, or just fake dice, night robberies, drinking at the expense of patrons. All this is reproduced in the chronicle, and Falstaff, with his grandiose figure, continues the gallery of comic types familiar to us from the Shakespearean era. But a poet with amazing art was able to merge such apparently heterogeneous signs of the times: the decline of the aristocracy and the influence of the Renaissance. It turns out that the extremes of new epicurean hobbies, moral lack of principle and all kinds of adventurism are most natural to be embodied in the personality of a ruined knight, and in the fall of one who retained aristocratic claims to a carefree parasitic life. Estates pride in the nature of the good-natured and financially helpless Falstaff added only an extra amusing feature to this abyss of wit and comic.

But Falstaff was destined to appear in the most unexpected guise, not characteristic of his philosophy and his character. It is said that Elizabeth was delighted with Sir John of the chronicle, wished to see him in the role of a lover by all means and, according to the will of the Queen, Shakespeare began a new play and finished it in two weeks.
Elizabeth, Queen of England, in a large royal dress. Engraving by Cristina de Pass, after a painting by Isaac Olivier. The inscriptions on the engraving (above): "God is my helper." Under the coat of arms: "Always unchanged." Below: "Elizabeth, BM, Queen of England, France, Scotland and Virginia, the most zealous protector of the Christian faith, now resting in Bose"

This was most likely in the spring of 1600. On March 8, the comedy Sir John Oldcastle was played for the Queen. That was the name of Falstaff before, - the poet changed his name after learning that Oldcastle was a famous Puritan in his time and suffered for his beliefs. But in what chronological respect the Windsor ridicule, converted from Sir John Oldcastle, stand for Henry IV, it is difficult to decide: maybe they arose after the first part of the chronicle, and maybe after the second and even after Henry V. For the Queen, the poet could have resurrected his hero, but for us, in fact, the fate of Falstaff as a character is important.

In the comedy, his morality is the same, but the same cannot be said about his mind. Previously, Falstaff did not consider his appearance captivating to women, but now he is filled with self-delusion on this score; earlier, he could hardly fly into repeated and very transparent deceptions and subject his person to the ridicule and insults of the bourgeois and bourgeois; but most importantly, was Sir John capable of such cowardice and remorse as are portrayed as a result of his misadventures? True, Falstaff, at the hour of his death, cries out to the Lord and curses the sherry, but this by no means proves the inclination of such a sinner by nature and reason to repentance and moral truths. On the other hand, it is by no means typical for our poet to compose plays for the sake of concluding teachings. But even if Falstaff of the Chronicle could get caught in the stupidest alteration, he would hardly have begun to talk with such frankness about his journey in a basket of laundry, as Falstaff does comedy to the imaginary Mr. Brooke. For all the riddles, one impression is quite certain: the comedy was written hastily. This, among other things, explains its prosaic form. The scenes are set with a predetermined intention - to amuse the audience with curious incidents and to present in a particularly funny way the main character, least of all fit for knights of love. Naturally, the last mockery of Falstaff under such conditions could have ended with the complete humiliation of the hero, leading him through all the stages of senile stupidity to pitiful tearful repentance. In terms of the content of the comedy itself, this is a plausible outcome, but only the comedy itself should not be viewed as a logical continuation of the chronicle, although the hero retains some common features in all plays.
Theater of the times of Shakespeare. The engraving is from the London Rishgitz Collection. Depicts one of the theaters of the early 17th century.

Regardless of the role of Falstaff, The Windsor Ridiculous stands in stark contrast to other Shakespearean comedies. There, the action takes place in an ideal atmosphere of subtle feelings and lyrical idylls (the only exception is the Taming of the Shrew) and only occasionally the sounds of everyday life burst into poetic harmony when jesters appear on the stage. In the Windsor Ridicule, by contrast, everyday life reigns supreme. Moreover, everyday life is provincial, simple-minded, sometimes rude, little poetic, although not devoid of a kind of humor. Almost all characters from the common class and are not able to pour out their feelings in the privileged form of sonnets and canzons. Only one ray of ordinary Shakespearean lyricism is thrown into this gray atmosphere: among prosaic fathers and mothers - the romance of a daughter and her lover, filled with all the freshness of first love. But most of the scenes were supposed to please Elizabeth's undemanding taste: the poet wrote a lively, frank farce and, for the sake of amusement, even sacrificed his incomparable hero. The emergence of such a play is all the more original in that it coincided with the poet's work on a work of a completely different nature. This work is Hamlet.