The Purpose of Gloucester in "King Lear"

In his Poetics, Aristotle outlines three rules for drama, dubbed the classical unities, praised by critics and followed strictly by many dramatists since Aristotle’s time. In neoclassical form, the three unities are:

1.     The unity of action: a play should have one main action that it follows, with no or few sub- plots.

2.     The unity of place: a play should cover a single physical space and should not attempt to compress geography, nor should the stage represent more than one place.

3.     The unity of time: the action in a play should take place over no more than 24 hours. (Kahan 14)

Shakespeare, in most of his dramatic works, does not follow all of these conventions. Hamlet ventures to various different locations in Denmark, while Macbeth takes place over the span of half a year. In the tragedy of King Lear, Shakespeare forsakes these rules even further by having the play take place over months of time and all throughout Britain. However, Shakespeare’s most significant transgression against Aristotle and centuries of neoclassical theater was his violation of the first rule, the unity of action. King Lear does not have just one main action; it follows the journeys of the titular King Lear and his daughters, as well as the Earl of Gloucester and his sons. The parallel plot of Gloucester mirrors that of Lear’s so closely that it can hardly even be considered a sub-plot—the two tales are halves of a whole, as are two rails of train tracks. Although Gloucester’s journey echoes that of Lear’s, Shakespeare instills in him and his sons themes that contrast and emphasize Lear’s tragedy, polishing the play with antithesis and synthesis that contribute to the drama’s universal validity.

As with many of his plays, Shakespeare wrote King Lear by expanding on previous accounts of the plot and characters. Shakespeare’s main source for King Lear was an anonymous play that was published twelve years before the first performance of Shakespeare’s version, and was titled The True Chronicle History of King Leir, and his three daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordella. In this King Leir, the traditional ending in which Cordelia lives and Lear is restored to the throne is used, although a version of the Kent character did appear for the first time (Mabillard). Shakespeare’s most drastic change, and there were many, is arguably not even his altered ending and killing of Lear and Cordelia, but his creation of the Gloucester family and the inclusion of the second plot line, which never appeared in any prior version of the legend of King Lear. Shakespeare drew the character of Gloucester from the King of Paphlagonia in Sir Philip Sydney’s novel “Arcadia”, in which the King’s bastard son, wanting to inherit the lands, turns the King against the legitimate brother. Shakespeare fuses this premise with the previous versions of “King Leir” to create the masterpiece that is today’s definitive account of Lear.

            King Lear is widely considered Shakespeare’s most beautiful, elaborate, and intricate play, however critical opinions of the inclusion of the parallel plots differ. While many critics consider Shakespeare’s union of the play’s parallel plots one of his greatest achievements (Somroo), others, such as A.C. Bradley, find that it distracts and detracts from what the story tries to communicate (Kahan 58). While many argue the duality of the plot emphasizes its themes, critics such as Leo Tolstoy find that “the fact that Lear’s relations with his daughters are the same as those of Gloucester with his sons, makes one feel yet more strongly that in both cases the relations are quite arbitrary and do not flow from the characters nor the natural course of events.” (qtd. in Kahan 58-59 ). This very aspect of the double plot that is so appealing to so many critics is, according to Tolstoy and others, one of the play’s biggest flaws. This mirroring element sparks another criticism of the play’s duplicity—the claims that the new characters, particularly Gloucester and Edgar, are not “full” characters. Of the father and son, A.C. Bradley says that Gloucester is neither “‘very interesting [n]or very distinct.’ He is kind of a nothing. We have no sense of him as a person: ‘He often gives one the impression of being wanted mainly to fill a place in the scheme of the play’”, and that of all the characters in the play “Edgar excites the least enthusiasm” (qtd. in Kahan 58, 53). Perhaps Bradley simply attended an amateur production of the play, but his feelings are shared by Northrop Frye, who belittles Gloucester and Edgar’s roles as inconsequential (53).

It’s reasonable too, why one might misunderstand and underestimate Gloucester and Edgar. They often step aside so that the plot of Lear and his daughters can be highlighted, and thus the Earl and his son are in the reader’s mind measure against those characters. Gloucester’s ordinariness in verse and character act as a foil to Lear’s greatness in poetry and stature, and this is why a reader can often fail to realize how Gloucester may be the better man. To simplify, Gloucester is a giver while Lear is merely a lender (Perret 92). In Act 1, Lear gives up his entire kingdom to his daughters, yet cannot part with his greatness and still expects to be treated like a King. Gloucester, on the other hand, gives freely, fully aware of the consequences. To Poor Tom, he says “Here, take this purse, thou whom the heavens' plagues / Have humbled to all strokes: that I am wretched / Makes thee the happier: heavens, deal so still!” (Shakespeare IV.i.74-76), whereas Lear gives nothing to Tom in the storm. Before he realizes Edmund’s betrayal, Gloucester confides in his son his selfless plan to help Lear: “Though I die for it, as no less is threatened me, the King my old master must be relieved. There is some strange thing toward, Edmund; pray you, be careful” (III.iii.18-20). In fact, the cause for each of the old men’s downfall reflects their own levels of morality. Lear causes the events that bring him down through his misjudgment of his daughters, where Gloucester is far more innocent, as he is blatantly lied to by his son Edmund. In spite of this, it is Gloucester who, at the end of the play, sees good in everyone, from Poor Tom to the old man that acts as his guide. Lear, however, is filled with hatred and he curses the entire world—“You sulphurous and thought-executing fires, / Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts, / Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder, / Smite flat the thick rotundity o' the world!” and tries to preserve only himself (III.ii.4-7). The reader frequently misses these acts of selflessness from Gloucester, because the old man is often measured with Edgar, who spends much of the play at his side (Perret 99). Edgar, throughout the play, gives all. Despite how wronged he’s been, he risks his life continuously to save others, knowing he will receive no thanks (especially since he’s in disguise for all of it). This is where A.C. Bradley underestimates Edgar’s character. Shakespeare’s inclusion of the two brothers pits two contrasts against each other—Edmund, who is the personification of evil, and Edgar, who is the embodiment of good. It is as if Edgar, being the legitimate son, properly inherited the morality gene from his good parents, where Edmund being the bastard did not receive a full dose. The two brothers, in any case, act as the extremes of the sides which all characters in the play choose—they are the captains, if not the star players, of the competing black and white teams, at odds with each other until their final battle, which doubly demonstrates the struggle for power between bastard and legitimate son (Kahan 53). Taking the spotlight off Gloucester even further, his death occurs offstage to make room for the dramatic demise of Lear, which becomes final thought left with the reader as they depart from the story.

Though Gloucester may not been seen as Lear’s equal upon casual reading, he certainly matches Lear’s importance in function to the play. The Gloucester family plot is woven into Lear’s seamlessly. It takes care of it’s own development, often through reaction to the Lear storyline, without interrupting or delaying the King’s own tale. “And with what ingenuity and skill are the two main parts of the composition dovetailed into one another!” says A.W. Schlegel, “The pity felt by Gloster [Gloucester] for the fate of Lear becomes the means which enables his son Edmund to effect his destruction”, referring to how Edmund informs Regan and Cornwall that Gloucester goes off to help Lear (qtd. in Kahan 58). This betrayal leads to Gloucester’s blinding at the hands of Cornwall, a horrifying scene appealing very mightily to pathos.  It is the most shocking moment of the play, intensifying the pity felt for the good people like Gloucester who suffer. Gloucester’s physical torture contrasts the insane Lear’s mental torture, which demonstrates another purpose of Gloucester’s character in the play. Although he mirrors Lear in most aspects, Gloucester’s character differs just enough to provide some contrast to the King. Gloucester, being a man of higher morals and less blame, arguably suffers more unjustly than Lear, yet is allowed a small redemption in his final scenes. He becomes at last a man who can, at least slightly and figuratively, see, as he realizes how Edmund betrayed him and discovers that Edgar is safe.  He, in a sense, dies happy. This cannot be said the same for Lear, but although the men differ in their deaths, their lives are continuous parallels of one another. Both are victims of filial ingratitude, caused by their own misjudgments, both are betrayed and abandoned by their children to wander Britain, both undertake torture and lose their ability to clearly see, and both died without proper redemption. While many critics view the echoing plot of Gloucester to be redundant, it’s effect remains necessary. This simple repetition of events emphasizes the play’s final theme and heightens the effect of catharsis felt at the completion of the play. A final contrast between Lear and Gloucester, their social status, is also important to the universality of the play. In human nature, what is true for the King is true for a nobleman. It is true for the peasant; it is true for the beggar.  This is demonstrated by King Lear’s portrayal of a King and a lower Earl both experiencing similar situations.  The duplicity of the plot emphasizes King Lear‘s theme and demonstrates that it is applicable to everyone.

Shakespeare’s greatest work would not be complete without the characters of Gloucester, Edgar, and Edmund. With them, Shakespeare ties together a perfect synthesis in King Lear‘s parallel plots. While critics from A.C. Bradley to Aristotle might not agree with Shakespeare, the Bard here sings us a masterful duet, in which he harmonizes the two stories in his own form of unity. Shakespeare’s significant contribution to the legend of King Lear is not just its tragic ending, it’s the new impact he gives it through the horror and redemption of the story of the Earl. As in iterations before, Lear blindly travels his same journey across his kingdom, only now in Gloucester he has been given a companion, a countermelody to call and answer to.

Works Cited

Kahan, Jeffrey. “Introduction: Shakespeare’s King Lear.” King Lear: New critical essays. New York: Routledge, 2008. 1-103. Google Books. Web. 24 Nov. 2010. .

Mabillard, Amanda. “The True Chronicle History of King Leir.” Shakespeare Online. N.p., 20 Aug. 2000. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. .

Perret, Marion D. “Lear’s Good Old Man.” Shakespeare Studies 17 (1985): 89-93. Rpt. in Literary Reference Center. N.p.: Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corporation, n.d. N. pag. Literary Reference Center. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. .

Shakespeare, William. King Lear. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Somroo, A. R. “Double Plot in King Lear.” N.d. Scribd. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. .

Analysis of "The Penalty of Death" as a Satire

At last, a writer who fully understands that all society wants from the justice system is “a healthy letting off of steam” (Mencken).  In his satirical essay The Penalty of Death, H.L. Mencken, through use of humor, exaggeration, and mocking euphemisms and anecdotes, satires America’s use of capital punishment.  His essay attacks in particular the purpose of the death penalty and the public’s light treatment of “hanging a man (or frying or gassing him)” (Mencken).  Mencken’s informal essay is persuasive in the sense that it is satire and uses irony to support his thesis.

Should The Penalty of Death be taken literally, the thesis would explicitly be: “What I contend is that one of the prime objects of all judicial punishments is to afford the same grateful relief (a) to the immediate victims of the criminal punished, and (b) to the general body of moral and timorous men” (Mencken).  As a satire however, Mencken ridicules this statement as he supports it, and therefore his thesis is implicit, expressing his criticism of the American treatment of the death penalty.  Mencken speaks satirically in the essay as an upstanding citizen patriotically supporting his country’s justice system while, also patriotically, offering helpful suggestions to improve it.   The syntax is kept simple and many colloquialisms and clichés are used to give the speaker a personal, conversational voice.   Mencken writes mainly for the pro-death penalty audience, as this “patriotic” perspective is exaggerated to the point where it mocks these advocates.   This tone is achieved through exaggeration, such as the first “argument against capital punishment” that is discussed, saying  “that hanging a man…is degrading to those who have to do it and revolting to those who have to witness it” (Mencken).  Mencken does not mention the obvious arguments against the death penalty, such as a person’s right to life, instead exaggerating the American priority on a person’s own comfort.  Also contributing to the sarcastic, mocking tone is euphemism, such as the repeated use of “katharsis” as a blatant replacement for “revenge”.

            The essay is structured at first in a problem-solution form.  Mencken wastes no time refuting the two “arguments against capital punishment” that open the essay, and offers his satirical thesis about “grateful relief” as a solution to the problem of the death penalty’s apparent uselessness.  The “grateful relief” solution is, of course, ironic; it implies that that absurd goal is the only real reason that American uses the death penalty.  Through example, he supports his argument of katharsis until arriving at the issue of a prisoner’s lengthy stay on death row.  Here, Mencken’s true intentions start to emerge as he begins sympathize with the condemned criminals.  He describes how it is unjust that “a murderer, under the traditional American system, is tortured for what, to him, must seem a whole series of eternities” (Mencken).  Now that the criminal is being viewed as human again, the Mencken’s moral argument of whether the death penalty is right becomes apparent.  This ends the essay with the message that all people should be treated ethically, which is effective after the completion of four or five paragraphs that claim the death penalty is not ethical.  The essay’s abrupt end, without any sort of conclusion, may be jarring to the reader but also ensures that the reader is actively thinking about Mencken’s final message when the essay is put down.

            In these final paragraphs, Mencken uses strong imagery such as being “tortured…a whole series of eternities” as an appeal to pathos and ethos, stimulating the reader’s emotions and sense of ethics.  While this appeal to pathos closes the essay on a serious note, the rest of the satire appeals mostly to ethos and logos.  Logos is present everywhere, particularly in Mencken’s refute of an executioner’s misery and his introduction of katharsis as a reason for the penalty, which he, in sarcasm and irony, supports heavily.  As the essay is a satire, ethos is called on in nearly every point Mencken makes, as he suggests “you’re not anything like the people I’m mocking, are you?”

            The Penalty of Death is very effective in its delivery of Mencken’s opinions.  Mencken’s sense of humor makes it clear from the beginning what he intends to discuss and how he will do it, and his detailed support of his satirical thesis “katharsis” makes his message enjoyable as well as informative.  His satirical voice is believable as pro-death penalty American, but his meaning is clearly driven home when the essay, like the life of a doomed prisoner, is ended before its natural close.  As Mencken suggests, maybe the judicial system needs a new “healthy letting off of steam”.

"Shooting the Elephant" vs. "The 'Values' Wasteland"

"Shooting the Elephant" by George Orwell and "The 'Values Wasteland" by Charles Sykes

          “He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (Orwell 151), says George Orwell in his personal narrative essay Shooting an Elephant.  This topic is the focus in his biographical piece as well as in Charles Skyes’ formal persuasive essay The “Values” Wasteland.   While both essays are explicit in the presentation of their themes, the common issue—the disregard of a universal morality for the sake of self-gratification—is discussed in very different ways by each writer.  Orwell’s approach,  which is more effective,  reveals his theme throughout the course of a well-told story, whereas Skyes builds an argument on evidence obtained from studies and surveys about the issue.

Orwell, speaking to an general, intellectual audience (one that would read a compilation of essays, such as where Shooting an Elephant is found) weaves his theme into a narrative, putting focus on his encounter with an elephant and letting the events of the story act as evidence to his arguments.  This becomes a strong appeal to logos and ethos, because as Orwell describes the events he also describes the logical conclusions that can be made from them about human nature, such as the parallel of the elephant’s rampage to the British oppression of the Burmese.  The narrative format with its conflict and vivid imagery creates a suspenseful and eventually tragic tone that Orwell’s audience can relate to emotionally.  An example of this is the fall of the elephant: “He trumpeted, for the first and last time.  And then down he came, his belly towards me, with a crash that seemed to shake the ground” (Orwell 153).  In this sentence Orwell captures the majesty of the beast with the image of “trumpeting” and “shaking the ground—a strong appeal to pathos.  Orwell maintains simple syntax and language throughout the essay and focuses on telling a story, which for his general audience is a very appealing structure.

The “Values” Wasteland targets an educated audience of parents, teachers and education workers, and anyone concerned with the development of youth.  Skyes appeals to logos with the inclusion of anecdotes recounting shocking surveys and stories that highlight ethical issues.  The essay’s tone implies the writers frustration and concern towards his topic, which while offering a small appeal to ethos sacrifices a clear, focused structure which makes it difficult at times to even be sure of what side Skyes is arguing.  In paragraph 9, for example, he condemns the old Clarifiers curriculum’s “subtle inculcation of the adults’ values upon the young” as “authoritarian and stifling, but also dangerous to the ethical health of children (Skyes 201)”.  Later in the paragraph, he criticizes the new curriculum, and how “its goal was empowering youngsters to make their own decisions, whatever the decisions were…”.  When the argument becomes clear, Skyes’ essay relies very heavily on anecdotes and information from other sources.  While these provide a “shock factor” for the reader, it gives the feeling that Skyes’ writing is there to supplement the evidence, and not vice-versa.

Skyes argues that young people are very affected by “society’s shift from a culture of self-control to one of self-gratification, self-actualization, and self-realization” (198-199), which leads to an undeveloped sense of morality.  His inductive reasoning is not as convincing as the deductive reasoning of Orwell, who formed his thesis of off of observation and experience.  In structure as well as appeal, Orwell’s essay is more powerful and delivers a simpler, stronger message, that in a moral dilemma, a person “becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib”, making decisions “solely to avoid looking a fool” (Orwell 153).

12 Easy Absurdist Plays: Summaries

Nuts

By Tom Topor

Psychological Drama.  Set in a courtroom inside a psychiatric hospital, a girl is accused of killing a prostitute in self defense.  Her parents, trying to defend her, try to have her declared insane, while their daughter fights to prove her sanity.
9 Characters.

Olive

Dark fairy tale.  A girl meets her father, who abandoned her at birth, and who takes her to a foreign country.  Fed up with his daughter’s backtalk, the father cuts off her hands.  A wood sprite arrives to save her life and gives her a new pair of hands.  She is immersed in a dark fairytale world.  Difficult to find play.
11 characters.

Team Spirit

By Judy Upton

A lone yachtswoman must win a race between Plymouth and Halifax, Nova Scotia to continue to afford to pursue her dreams, but every moment of her journey is relayed by video and internet to the media and the public. Can she weather the publicity storm as well as the worst the weather can throw at her? 
13 parts.

The Lesson

By Eugène Ionesco

A professor is expecting a new pupil.  The pupil proves to be more and more ignorant, and is eventually murdered by the professor. 
3 Characters.

The Bald Soprano

By Eugène Ionesco

A couple from London invite their friends over for a visit.  The hosts’ maid and the local fire chief, who are lovers, show up later.  The two families talk meaninglessly, telling stories and poems.  The group is unsettled when the fire chief mentions, in leaving, a “bald soprano”.   After this, the play unsettles into a series of meaningless and illogical non sequiturs. 
6 characters.

The Birthday Party

By Harold Pinter

A piano player living in a boarding house is visited by two strangers who accuse him of leaving and betraying their organization.  They and the hosts of the boarding house plan him a surprise party for his birthday, which the piano player denies having.  The next day, the strangers carry him away to a car and drive away. 
6 characters.

A Night Out

By Harold Pinter

A loner who lives with his mother is invited to an office party.  His mother tells him to behave himself, and at the party he tries to engage in small talk but is falsely accused of making a move on a girl.  He flees the party, and picks up a girl in a coffee chop.  When they head back to her room, the girl acts pretentious and the annoyed man leaves her and returns to his mother. 
15 characters.

A Slight Ache

By Harold Pinter

A man and a woman sit at a breakfast table, where the men mentions a slight ache in his eyes.  Outside, a matchseller who has been standing in front of the yard for weeks makes the man and woman nervous.  As they discuss him, the man’s ache becomes aggravated.  The man and woman invite in the matchseller to confront him, and he turns out to be an old man who apparently cannot see or speak.  His silence causes the man and woman to spill out their fears and frustrations. 
3 Characters.

The Dumb Waiter

By Harold Pinter

Two hired killers, hiding out in the basement of an abandoned restaurant, spend their time bickering.  They discuss the news and their surroundings.  The food delivery elevator behind them mysteriously begins to deliver food. 
2 Characters.

Recklessness

By Eugene O'Neill

A wealthy lady and her married wealthy husband have a maid.  The wealthy lady falls in love with a low-class man, who was a past lover of the maid’s.  The maid, jealous of their affair, reveals it to the wealthy husband.  The wealthy husband confronts his wife and the low-class man, and after the two confess their affair, the wealthy husband has the low-class man killed.  His wife chooses to take her own life as well. 
(Seemingly) 4 characters.

The Lottery 

Adapted by Brainerd Duffield, Original short story by Shirley Jackson

In a contemporary small town, locals are nervous on the day of the annual “lottery” ritual., practiced to ensure a good harvest.  The head of each family randomly draws a piece of paper.  The one who draws the marked sheet enters the second round of lottery with the rest of his family.  Each family member pulls a piece, and the wife pulls the marked paper.  Everyone present stones the wife to death in sacrifice for the harvest, while the wife protests the fairness of the lottery. 
10+ Characters.

The Actor’s Nightmare

By Christopher Durang

A man is inexplicably backstage at a play performance.  The stage manager is under the impression that the man is an understudy for an actor who broke his legs.  The man, very confused, cannot remember coming to any rehearsals or ever being an actor.  He thinks he is an accountant.  Nobody else in the play can seem to agree on what play is being performed, but the confused man is forced on stage anyways.  He improvises his character for most of the time, but finally realizes what play he is in and who his character is.  He also realizes that his character is to be executed.  When the set for his execution seems all too real, he convinces himself he must be in a dream and accepts the execution.  At the play’s curtain call, to the casts confusion, he appears to actually be dead. 
7 characters.

Acting out Zastrozzi

Portrayal of Zastrozzi

The first few lines of Zastrozzi’s opening monologue defines the rest of it.  Zastrozzi introduces himself, claims that he is a master criminal, and then assures the audience it is not a boast.  This line needs to be delivered convincingly, because it gives proper connotation to the rest of the scene—Everything that Zastrozzi is saying is pure honesty.  He is not trying to boast—he feels no need to—he is simply being open with the audience.  This allows the confession that follows to be genuinely accepted by the audience, creating sympathy for Zastrozzi right from the first scene.  This initial sympathy is essential because there is little else in the play to cause us to want to support Zastrozzi in his horrible plot.  It also is a valuable display of Zastrozzi’s character, since we see that he uses this early one on one time with the audience to manipulate us into being on his side.

Because of this importance, this monologue is needs to feel genuine.  It cannot, while remaining accurate to the play, become comedic or exaggerated.  For my performance, this means no complicated costume, no over-the-top make up, and no accent, which on first reading the monologue seems to call for.  While technically the accent would make the presentation more accurate, as Zastrozzi is very much European, I feel that a false one would be distracting from the lines and take away from the natural, truthful dialogue I’d like to convey.  While there has to be genuine emotion in Zastrozzi’s lines, he shouldn’t get too worked up at points where he describes his nightmares.  Through the play, Zastrozzi remains cool and confident, and his introduction is no different.  His is, however, still human, and although he has been desensitized by all his crime he needs to show that he is troubled.  His movements are all deliberate and smooth, and he moves like a man who has gotten to the point in his career where he can get others to do his dirty work for him.  

For a costume, it would be great to go totally authentic, with full Victorian garb, but that might not be plausible.  Besides, I don’t want Zastrozzi’s costume to distract from his character.  Being a master criminal, he can most likely afford to dress nice, as throughout the play money never seems to be a concern for him.  So probably a dress shirt and pants.  At first thought, black seems like the way to go for Zastrozzi, but I have to remember that I’m not dressing him, he dresses himself; and what would he wear? Zastrozzi doesn’t really consider himself evil.  He calls himself a criminal because that’s the label that civilization gives him.  As opposed to going all black, maybe something like a grey or brown jacket with a black turtleneck would fit him best.  As for make-up, it should be minimal.  Zastrozzi is, physically, a normal man, just one capable of being evil.  So maybe just some aging stuff, and some bags under my eyes for the man who never sleeps.  I’ll comb my hair nicely, and keep a handy arsenal of prop weapons on me in case of attack.  Making a complete “set” is a difficult creative decision, because I feel like in the play there would be an empty stage.  Zastrozzi has simply come on stage to speak to the audience, and he should not be preoccupied with anything else.  However, I suppose there could still be a one-on-one feel to the scene should Zastrozzi be in his cottage living room in an armchair with a glass of brandy.  No, I don’t think he drinks.  Maybe milk.  We’ll see. 

Summary and Theme of Absurdity

 The story of the Master of Discipline takes place in Italy in the late 19^th century.  The play begins with Zastrozzi, a sociopathic master criminal, kidnapping of his half-brother, the popular, compassionate, and religious Verezzi, towards whom he swears revenge for an unknown reason.  Zastrozzi and his servant take the sleeping Verezzi away and lock him up, miles away from the city.  The resourceful Verezzi, thanks to chance, finds a way to escape the Zastrozzi and heads for the town.  In the town, he encounters Matilda, an old friend who is infatuated with him, although he does not return the sentiments.  Verezzi cannot think of any other women but his love Julia.  Nevertheless, the two pass time in each other’s company while Verezzi hides from his half-brother, who searches the city extensively for him.

Unknown to Verezzi, Zastrozzi has already approached Matilda, claiming to seek vengeance on Verezzi’s lover, Julia.  Matilda agrees to join him in plotting Julia’s death, hoping that with Julia out of the way Verezzi will then turn to her.  As the first part of their plan, Matilda delivers the false news one day to Verezzi that Julia has died.  Verezzi is crushed and falls ill.  Matilda tends to him while he is bed-ridden, and slowly Verezzi warms up to her, although he can still not shake his feelings of love towards his supposedly deceased Julia.  Zastrozzi, still mysteriously not killing Verezzi, thinks up a plan to help Matilda win him over.  One evening, an “assassin” sent by Zastrozzi attacks Verezzi and Matilda, and Matilda, as planned, steps in the way of the dagger as is wounded in the arm.  Full of admiration and gratitude for Matilda, Verezzi finally agrees to marry her.  One night after their marriage, however, Verezzi sees Julia, very alive, on the road.  His sanity is broken, and he kills himself in horror of the situation he’s found himself in.  Matilda, devastated, then kills Julia.  Matilda, and later Zastrozzi, are brought to trial for the murders of the two lovers.  Matilda can only shudder in fear of death, but Zastrozzi takes the opportunity to calmly reveal his master plan.  Zastrozzi, wishing the ultimate revenge on Verezzi (in Percy Shelly’s novel, Zastrozzi: A Romance, Zastrozzi reveals that his mother was abandoned by his and Verezzi’s father, causing her to die at an early age, demanding that Zastrozzi avenge her), feels that simple murder is not punishment enough.  Therefore, Zastrozzi concocted a ploy to cause Verezzi, a deeply religious man, to kill himself.  According to Verezzi’s Catholic faith, the consequence of suicide is eternal damnation—vengeance that Zastrozzi feels is satisfactory.  Zastrozzi and Matilda are sentenced to death, which Zastrozzi approaches calmly while renouncing religion and morality.

The story of Zastrozzi is not just a simple fight between good and evil.  The play is absurdist, and Zastrozzi is an atheist who believes that actions on earth are meaningless, and thus makes up his own laws and values.  He creates his own idea of justice, in which a son must be killed for the offenses of his father.  This retribution viewpoint causes Zastrozzi’s obsession over Verezzi.  Verezzi is the master criminals sole purpose, and after Verezzi’s death Zastrozzi meets his own death peacefully, feeling that he has completed what he was on Earth to do.  This demonstrates the play’s existentialist theme: arguing that there is no God, and there is no other purpose for humans that to create their own reasons to live, which is exactly what Zastrozzi does.  Because of this, he is totally amoral—killing people without giving a second thought to it. 

            Zastrozzi, while being the main character, is not the protagonist of the play.  He does not change over the course of the play’s two acts; he finishes as the exact same character that began, only he has completed his goal of revenge.  In fact, Zastrozzi does not even appear all that often, and much of the play focuses on Matilda and Verezzi, who are the protagonists that change by the end of the play.  Zastrozzi is the puppeteer whose hand you can feel driving along the action from offstage.  Zastrozzi is an anti-hero.  He is the one with the goal that the audience is “rooting for”.  While it seems unusual to “root for” Zastrozzi when he is clearly an evil character and has the goal to destroy Verezzi, who is likable enough, it is also difficult not to.  Zastrozzi manipulates the audience as he does Matilda and Verezzi, demanding their affections, and leaves them feeling confused about their supporting Zastrozzi in a plot so horrible and, consequentially, absurd.