Cymbeline (1609)

One of Shakespeare's most perplexing and unclassifiable late plays, Cymbeline is often labelled a "Romance", due to its themes of pastoralism, exile and familial reconciliation which critics notice recur throughout Shakespeare's last plays, from Pericles to The Tempest. Set in ancient Roman Britain at the court of the British king Cymbeline, the main action of the play revolves around the relationship between Cymbeline's daughter, Imogen, and Posthumous Leonatus. Attempting to marry Imogen off to Cloten, the grotesque son of Cymbeline's second wife, the king banishes Posthumous in a rage when he discovers he has secretly married Imogen. As the personal relationships in the play deteriorate, on the public stage Rome prepares to invade Britain due to Cymbeline's failure to pay tribute to his imperial master. As the play builds to its militaristic climax, Posthumous returns to Britain, where he eventually contrives a reunion with Imogen and Cymbeline's long-lost sons, who unite in their attempt to resist the might of Rome. The ending of the play, with its series of mystical riddles, unlikely coincidences and extraordinary reunions has baffled critics for centuries. Some read it as a heavy-handed political allegory of Jacobean national union under the new sovereign of the time, King James I, whilst others see in it Shakespeare pushing theatrical realism to its furthermost limits, with its decapitated bodies, complex staging and unlikely mistaken identities. Cymbeline remains a puzzling, enigmatic play. --Jerry Brotton

"Cymbeline" was one of the few Shakespeare plays that I'd never heard of before embarking on my quest to read them all. So, I really didn't have particularly high hopes that I'd enjoy it.

While certainly not amongst the bard's best works, I was surprised to find I enjoyed this play quite a bit. I found it to be well-paced and I enjoyed the interactions between the characters. It had a lot of elements that are typical Shakespeare -- from Imogen's travels disguised by man, to a sad King tossing a child out into the wild, to hidden identities that are revealed at the end.

It isn't a perfect play, as there are lots of characters floating about, making it a bit challenging to follow and the ending all sort of tumbles together (happily) for no particular reason.

That said, I still liked the overall story. ( )

Cymbeline defies the standard genre divisions in the Shakespeare corpus. It sets itself up as a tragedy, with a scheming villain defiling the reputation of a young princess (e.g., Othello), murder plots and poison. Yet, the resolution is famously happy, with the main love interests reconciled and peace between Britain and the Romans obtained.

It makes for an interesting read, but it is this happy ending which is the most common point of dispute over this work. Not only is the play a happy ending, but the circumstances seem to simply come from one speech after another laying all of the scheming bare. First, Iachimo tearfully confesses his crime, followed by the posthumous confessions of the Queen, ending in Belarius' revealing that his sons were in fact the sons of Cymbeline, and so Princes of Britain. These events happen quickly, and the plots of the book are simply pointed out in convenient speeches. I have been told that it performs far better than it reads, but the problem is not with Shakespeare challenging the genre, but rather with the rapidity and tidiness of the conclusion.

On the other hand, there is another layer present in the ending. Cymbeline takes place in the time of Caesar Augustus, and also the time of the birth of Christ. Though not referenced directly, the plays fortuitous conclusion and honorable peace indicate an era of peace dawning on a conflicted land. One might read the ending of the book as revealing the power of the Christian's savior to bring peace to the Earth.

It also lacks a powerful villain. The Queen's plots come in early, but are pushed to the side as the play progresses. Iachimo, whose betrayal of Imogen sets the main conflicts in motion, is merely a charlatan attempting to win a bet. Like the Queen, once his damage is done, he plays little role in the events. Cloten is consistently obnoxious, and when he attempts to engage in some dastardly deeds, he is promptly killed in the attempt. They play more like the villains of the comedies, whose schemes move the plot along, but who do not take center stage.

Despite these complaints, it is still a work of literary beauty, filled within Shakespearean genius. In particular, the scene where Pisanio reveals his letter from Posthumous to Imogen is gripping. It is poetic and passionate, as Imogen reveals the strength of her character, dominating the scene and Pisanio. It also contains some moving poetry, most notably the first song (II.3, 19-27):

Hark, hark, the lark at heaven's gate sings
And Phoebus gins arise,
His steeds to water at those springs
On chaliced flowers that lies;
And winking Mary-Buds begin
To ope their golden eyes.
With every thing that pretty is,
My lady sweet, arise,
Arise, arise! ( )

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1210247.html

Cymbeline is rather odd. Although it is traditionally listed as one of the Tragedies, it actually has a happy ending: the evil queen and her wicked son are dead, lost children restored, estranged spouses reunited. It's also odd that the title character is not particularly prominent in the plot: this is really the story of Cymbeline's daughter, Imogen, and her husband Postumus. (Even Julius Cæsar, killed off in the third act, looms over the rest of the play and reappears as a ghost.)

Another odd thing about Cymbeline is the music. Two of the most famous Shakespeare songs are here - 'Hark, hark, the lark' and 'Fear no more the heat of the sun' - and Act 5 Scene 1 is a musical extravaganza of Postumus's visionary dreams which almost foreshadows Gene Kelly. (Well, not really, but if you know both Cymbeline and Singin' in the Rain or An American in Paris, I hope you can see my point.) There's the occasional song elsewhere in the canon, but this is surely the Bard's most serious musical effort.

The music must make it challenging to stage, but apart from that it is a perfectly decent story. There is a glorious moment when Imogen discovers a headless corpse dressed in her husband Postumus's clothes, and assumes the worst; but it is in fact the body of the evil Cloten, slain by Imogen's own long-lost brother. Compared to the best known plays, there are not many memorable lines, which I guess explains its relative obscurity.

Arkangel don't really make the most of the material. Jack Shepherd is subdued in the title role, Sophie Thompson (Emma's sister, Eric's daughter) is rather drippy as Imogen, and I can't even remember who plays Postumus. The show is thoroughly stolen by Stephen Mangan as the Hooray Henry evil princeling Cloten, and I was sorry when his head was chopped off in the fourth act. Stephen 'Marvin' Moore was also good as the exiled family retainer Belarius. ( )

Of the Shakespeare plays I've read so far (probably about a dozen or so), this is probably my favourite. I find it difficult to pinpoint exactly why I liked it so much, but I did. The final scene, in particular, is well described as a theatrical tour de force as it relentlessly brings one revelation after another to tie up all the various subplots and bring about the reconciliation of all the still-living characters. ( )