Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Signet / New American Library (1968), Paperback, 239 pages
Description
Imogen, the daughter of King Cymbeline, is persecuted by her wicked stepmother, the Queen, and by Cloten, the Queen's doltish son. Disguised as a boy, she sets out to find her husband, the banished Posthumus.
Media reviews
The Saturday Review
I confess to a difficulty in feeling civilized just at present. Flying from the country, where the gentlemen of England are in an ecstasy of chicken-butchering, I return to town to find the higher wits assembled at a play three hundred years old, in which the sensation scene exhibits a woman waking
Show More
up to find her husband reposing gorily in her arms with his head cut off. Pray understand, therefore, that I do not defend Cymbeline. It is for the most part stagey trash of the lowest melodramatic order, in parts abominably written, throughout intellectually vulgar, and, judged in point of thought by modern intellectual standards, vulgar, foolish, offensive, indecent, and exasperating beyond all tolerance. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member bookworm12
This is one of Shakespeare’s most convoluted plots. It combines bits and pieces from his greatest works, but in a strange way. There’s a battle to rival that in Henry V, parental ghosts like Hamlet, a jealous husband like Othello and ill-fated lovers and faked death like Romeo and Juliet. In
King Cymbeline of Britain is furious when he finds out his only daughter, Imogen, has secretly married Posthumus Leonatus, a man from his court. He quickly banishes Posthumus from his kingdom and shortly thereafter Posthumus meets Iachimo in Italy. He tells his new friend all about his beautiful Imogen. Iachimo isn’t impressed and makes a bet with Posthumus regarding her honor. Add in a devious Queen plotting the King’s death, her horrid son Cloten, missing heirs to the throne, warring Romans and a beheading and you’ve got the gist of it.
BOTTOM LINE: A strange mishmash of Shakespearean themes, but a satisfying if contrived ending. I’d love to see this one performed, but until then I’ll have to settle for the wild ride the play takes you on.
Show More
the midst of this jumble are the old standbys, a woman pretending to be a young page and banished people living in the forest. This play is divisive among Shakespeare scholars when it comes to its categorization, some consider it a tragedy and others a romance. King Cymbeline of Britain is furious when he finds out his only daughter, Imogen, has secretly married Posthumus Leonatus, a man from his court. He quickly banishes Posthumus from his kingdom and shortly thereafter Posthumus meets Iachimo in Italy. He tells his new friend all about his beautiful Imogen. Iachimo isn’t impressed and makes a bet with Posthumus regarding her honor. Add in a devious Queen plotting the King’s death, her horrid son Cloten, missing heirs to the throne, warring Romans and a beheading and you’ve got the gist of it.
BOTTOM LINE: A strange mishmash of Shakespearean themes, but a satisfying if contrived ending. I’d love to see this one performed, but until then I’ll have to settle for the wild ride the play takes you on.
Show Less
LibraryThing member antiquary
Shaw disliked the complex ending, but I found it very funny.
LibraryThing member deptstoremook
I was heartened to read in the New York Times today that I wasn't the only one who was knocked off-course by the almost deliberately confusing plot and character interactions.
LibraryThing member magnuscanis
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
Show More
revelation after another to tie up all the various subplots and bring about the reconciliation of all the still-living characters. Show Less
LibraryThing member jeff.maynes
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
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!
Show More
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!
Show Less
LibraryThing member amerynth
"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
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.
While certainly not amongst the bard's best works, I was surprised to find I enjoyed this play quite a bit. I
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member birdie.newborn
This "history" play of Shakespeare's is probably not part of the Tudor campaign for legitimacy, but gives a glimpse into early Britain. A headstrong woman, one of many from Shakespeare -- makes one wonder about his personal life…
LibraryThing member AliceAnna
Willie seems to have been fixated on men who don't trust their wives. Maybe Anne was fooling around on him. Kind of a weird meandering story. Too many elements to maintain my interest.
LibraryThing member Coach_of_Alva
I sensed that Shakespeare trying to reuse his favorite dramatic devices, including: jealous lovers, wronged women, plucky heroines, male impersonation, scheming villains, idyllic landscapes, wise clowns. I also couldn't help noticing that, although the Bard called the play a tragedy, he was using a
Show More
romantic comedy / adventure plot. He also gave the "tragedy" a happy ending, albeit a very complicated one. He had to unwind a large number of plot entanglements in one act. I found that complicated to read and wondered how it could be staged without turning into a train wreck. Despite that, I quite enjoyed reading the play, a rousing adventure with great characters. I thought was a vast improvement over the collaborations and a welcome lightening of tone. Show Less
LibraryThing member AlanWPowers
"Cymbeline" I considered a difficult play to stage until a surprisingly coherent version at the Huntington Theater, in 1991 when my grad school classmate Peter Altman ran the show, the theater. But reading it under the Trumpster makes all Iachimo’s lies problematic; our context changes the
So many Shakespeare villains articulate truths, like Iago, and here, the clod Cloten, whose assault on the married Imogen gave me the title to my book on Shakespeare and popular culture, which I called "Meaner Parties."* Cloten says of her marriage to Leonatus, “It is no contract, none;/ And though it be allowed in meaner parties…to knit their souls,/ On whom there is no more dependency/ But brats and beggary, in self-figur’d knot,/ Yet you are curbed…by the consequence of a crown…”(II.iii.116ff) He refers to canon law’s accepting, in York Dean Swinburne’s Of Spousals, handshake marriages—as long as there were witnesses to the vows spoken along with the ring or token. By the way, three centuries before DeBeers, engagement and marriage rings weren't distinct; both could be military or wax-sealrings.
A couple scenes prior to Cloten here, Iachimo comes to England with a letter of endorsement, part of a bet, from Posthumus Leonatus (I.vi). Posthumus had been exiled to Italy by Cymbelene for displacing the new queen’s execrable son Cloten in Imogen’s affection—in fact, marrying her.
As in Merchant of Venice, where Shylock compares his daughter and his ducats, his dearest possessions, Posthumous compares Imogen’s gift ring and herself; to Iachimo’s taunt, “I have not seen the most precious diamond that there is, nor you the lady,” Posthumus rejoins, “I praised her as I rated her: so do I my stone.” Iachimo even refers to Imogen as “she your jewel” to accompany the diamond, “this your jewel”(I.iv.153).
Having set up so close a comparison—indeed, an identity— between the token jewel and the lover jewel, no wonder Posthumus falls apart when Iachimo brings back the bracelet he’d stolen from Imogen. Posthumus’s friend Philario notes he is “Quite beyond the government of patience!”(II.iv.150)—rather like a certain new Supreme Court judge.
Later confessing to King Cymbeline’s inquiry, “How came it yours?” about the diamond on his finger, Iachimo blurts out that he defamed Imogen with token evidence,
“that he could not / But think her bond of chastity quite crack’d,/ I having taken this forfeit”(V.v.206). Posthumus need not have so concluded had he not merged token and person so strongly in his own mind.
But Renaissance marriage-court records fill with rings and bracelets betokening contract, whereas in fact it was the words accompanying the token, the vow, that counted in law. What we call domestic court were then in church, canon courts like Deacon Swinburne’s in York Minster (the room still exists, with three judge chairs on a raised dias, now used as a vestry).
Shakespeare’s plays feature tokens and vows. Cymbeline could have learned how to run a ring court from the King of France in All’s Well. And of course Twelfth Night boasts the most rings of the Bard’s plays. (See my “Early Modern Rings and Vows in TN,” in Twelfth Night: New Critical Essays (NY: Routledge, 2011), ed. James Schiffer. Note: I quote from my old Harrison edition, which uses Iachimo, not Jachimo.
* "meaner" in Elizabethan usage, lower status "parties" (in the legal sense)...average Joes and Jo's
Show More
register of the play, disenchants it.So many Shakespeare villains articulate truths, like Iago, and here, the clod Cloten, whose assault on the married Imogen gave me the title to my book on Shakespeare and popular culture, which I called "Meaner Parties."* Cloten says of her marriage to Leonatus, “It is no contract, none;/ And though it be allowed in meaner parties…to knit their souls,/ On whom there is no more dependency/ But brats and beggary, in self-figur’d knot,/ Yet you are curbed…by the consequence of a crown…”(II.iii.116ff) He refers to canon law’s accepting, in York Dean Swinburne’s Of Spousals, handshake marriages—as long as there were witnesses to the vows spoken along with the ring or token. By the way, three centuries before DeBeers, engagement and marriage rings weren't distinct; both could be military or wax-sealrings.
A couple scenes prior to Cloten here, Iachimo comes to England with a letter of endorsement, part of a bet, from Posthumus Leonatus (I.vi). Posthumus had been exiled to Italy by Cymbelene for displacing the new queen’s execrable son Cloten in Imogen’s affection—in fact, marrying her.
As in Merchant of Venice, where Shylock compares his daughter and his ducats, his dearest possessions, Posthumous compares Imogen’s gift ring and herself; to Iachimo’s taunt, “I have not seen the most precious diamond that there is, nor you the lady,” Posthumus rejoins, “I praised her as I rated her: so do I my stone.” Iachimo even refers to Imogen as “she your jewel” to accompany the diamond, “this your jewel”(I.iv.153).
Having set up so close a comparison—indeed, an identity— between the token jewel and the lover jewel, no wonder Posthumus falls apart when Iachimo brings back the bracelet he’d stolen from Imogen. Posthumus’s friend Philario notes he is “Quite beyond the government of patience!”(II.iv.150)—rather like a certain new Supreme Court judge.
Later confessing to King Cymbeline’s inquiry, “How came it yours?” about the diamond on his finger, Iachimo blurts out that he defamed Imogen with token evidence,
“that he could not / But think her bond of chastity quite crack’d,/ I having taken this forfeit”(V.v.206). Posthumus need not have so concluded had he not merged token and person so strongly in his own mind.
But Renaissance marriage-court records fill with rings and bracelets betokening contract, whereas in fact it was the words accompanying the token, the vow, that counted in law. What we call domestic court were then in church, canon courts like Deacon Swinburne’s in York Minster (the room still exists, with three judge chairs on a raised dias, now used as a vestry).
Shakespeare’s plays feature tokens and vows. Cymbeline could have learned how to run a ring court from the King of France in All’s Well. And of course Twelfth Night boasts the most rings of the Bard’s plays. (See my “Early Modern Rings and Vows in TN,” in Twelfth Night: New Critical Essays (NY: Routledge, 2011), ed. James Schiffer. Note: I quote from my old Harrison edition, which uses Iachimo, not Jachimo.
* "meaner" in Elizabethan usage, lower status "parties" (in the legal sense)...average Joes and Jo's
Show Less
LibraryThing member TobinElliott
Not a favourite, but mainly because the convoluted plot turns on far too many stacked up coincidences to ultimately be believable.
However, the biggest failing comes not from the play, but from Arkangel, in this one. In each play, they plug in some transition music to move you from scene to scene,
The music. Is. Terrible.
It's not fun to listen to, it's intrusive, and I, over the course of so many plays, now actually cringe each time a scene transitions.
And yet, even that pales to the odd time they actually put Shakespeare's lyrics to music. Again, simply awful.
And that's still not the worst part. In this particular play, when Posthumus (which is an absolutely quality handle, by the way. Good going, William!) sleeps and dreams of his family and, ultimately, Jupiter, the entire sequence is put to some of the most annoying music I've ever heard. It was so awful that I literally had to skip ahead to avoid it, and go to my hard copy of the play to read what I missed.
Honestly, whoever was the musical director for Arkangel should be soundly beaten, forced to listen to his or her own music continuously for a month, then have someone box their ears.
However, the biggest failing comes not from the play, but from Arkangel, in this one. In each play, they plug in some transition music to move you from scene to scene,
Show More
which is all well and good, however, even with each transitional piece taking up less than a minute of airtime...The music. Is. Terrible.
It's not fun to listen to, it's intrusive, and I, over the course of so many plays, now actually cringe each time a scene transitions.
And yet, even that pales to the odd time they actually put Shakespeare's lyrics to music. Again, simply awful.
And that's still not the worst part. In this particular play, when Posthumus (which is an absolutely quality handle, by the way. Good going, William!) sleeps and dreams of his family and, ultimately, Jupiter, the entire sequence is put to some of the most annoying music I've ever heard. It was so awful that I literally had to skip ahead to avoid it, and go to my hard copy of the play to read what I missed.
Honestly, whoever was the musical director for Arkangel should be soundly beaten, forced to listen to his or her own music continuously for a month, then have someone box their ears.
Show Less
LibraryThing member MrsLee
A Comedy in the sense that most of the characters come out alive, but not much humor to it. A love tragedy which ends Happily Ever After.
I enjoyed the reading of this, and watching the BBC production of it. I would like to have a talk with Imogen about her everlasting love for a man who put out a
I enjoyed the reading of this, and watching the BBC production of it. I would like to have a talk with Imogen about her everlasting love for a man who put out a
Show More
hit on her because of circumstantial evidence, no matter how damning, but other than that it was one of the more satisfying plays I've read recently. I love the part of Pisanio, the servant. In my eyes, he is the man who deserves all praise. If I were ever to direct this play, he would be the focus. A level-headed man amongst all the flighty nobility. Show Less
LibraryThing member et.carole
This is definitely my favorite Shakespeare plays. It serves as a mashup of all of them, in terms of plot content, and I think that it has some of Shakespeare's most vivid characterizations. It also seems to have fewer vulgar jokes, so that makes it much more enjoyable. Altogether, a tough read, but
Show More
an excellent one. Show Less
LibraryThing member DinadansFriend
This play is not greatly to my taste. But it does work on stage, and is a surviving work of the great writer. Imogen, the King's daughter is falsely accused of adultery, by the machinations of Iachimo, who creates an appearance of the deed. Imogen flees her father's court, but does recover her
Show More
position by an unlikely series of events. the play did not give birth to the usual number of later clichés in language. Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
1609
1623 (First Folio)
ISBN
none