Shakespeare’s Use and Non-use of Plague：From Macro-context to Micro-narrative

WANG Chutong ,

Abstract： This essay will discuss Shakespeare’s use and non-use of plague with regard to several aspects. Firstly， I will refer to Pericles and Oedipus the King to discuss differences between a romance and a tragedy， and how these differences may result in writers’ different focuses and narratives. In the second part， I will discuss why Romeo and Juliet die only partly because of plague， but do not truly die because of it with regard to Shakespeare’s notions of causality and tragedy. In the third part， I will discuss how King Lear makes use of plague as a curse most furiously and vulnerably， which at once points to his living environment defined by “being” and “nothingness，” and also generates something new and profound， through which modern readers may achieve a spiritual growth. I conclude the essay by restating Shakespeare’s great contributions to our modern ways of existence， and rethinking Shakespeare’s use and non-use of plague in his works： plague is never really away from Shakespeare and his contemporaries， and it belongs to the realm of nature. Shakespeare uses his language as an art to transcend or redefine nature by preserving a sense of hope， which each individual consciously and continuously strives for.

Keywords： Shakespeare； plague； genre； causality； curse； hope

Introduction

No one can ever claim to know Shakespeare’s real intentions and thoughts， and I agree with Marjorie Garber on the point that every age creates a different Shakespeare. She believes Shakespeare’s plays are “l(fā)iving works of art that grow and change over time， not museum pieces that must only be preserved in some imagined state of purity （or petrification）. Every production is an interpretation； world events and brilliant individual performances alike have shaped and changed these plays， so that they are ‘Shakespearean’ in their protean life， not restricted to some imagined （and unrecapturable） terrain of Shakespeare’s ‘intention’ or control.”1Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare After All (New York: Anchor Books, 2004), 652.I agree.But even though no one could ever know what Shakespeare truly means or thinks， any effort to revisit Shakespeare’s texts with a curiosity about his possible mental landscape would always be beneficial. This effort will not help explain all， but could explain more. We can never literally touch the real or have a thorough investigation of other minds， but we can still begin from studying theeffectof Shakespeare’s work on us， which will enrich the meanings of our own existence.

Emma Smith writes brilliantly in her recent essay entitled “What William Shakespeare Teaches us about Living with Pandemics.”2Emma Smith, “What William Shakespeare Teaches us about Living with Pandemics,” Gulf News, October 31, 2020, https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/covid-19-what-william-shakespeare-teaches-us-about-living-with-pandemics-1.70670108.She argues how Shakespeare’s works could be seen as a narrative vaccine to help us sail through difficult times. She talks about the ravenous appetite of plague—how it erases all social and personal distinctions and how everyone could become its victim. In her eyes， Shakespeare focuses on the uniqueness of each individual and characters can only die after their voices are properly heard. Therefore， even though his characters may die in many different and inventive ways， no one dies of plague. She concludes with a conditional and melancholic optimism： “Maybe our misery now， like Lear’s， will help us to see the meaning in the lives of others. Maybe， like Shakespeare， we should focus not on statistics but on the wonderfully， weirdly， cussedly， irredeemably individual.”3Ibid.

Smith leads me to rethink how Shakespeare has educated us in the most profound way about the distinctiveness of each individual. This Shakespearian education is extremely important when we have literally experienced a pandemic. Inspired by her beautiful insights， I would like to explore the theme further. I will focus not only on why Shakespeare ignores the immediate context of plague and creates a microcosm in which plague is not dominant， but also theeffectof Shakespeare’s use and non-use of plague， which may represent Shakespeare’s creative comprehensions of theatre， tragedy and modes of being.

In Shakespeare’s time， he needed to bear in mind that representations of plague on stage could frighten audiences away—they may be psychologically intimidated， and the play itself would seem not so attractive or entertaining. In fact， antagonism towards theatre itself was rampant through Shakespeare’s life and career， not only because some city officials claimed that theatre could have the potential danger to mesmerize and seduce people， but also because a social gathering may help spread the plague. If Shakespeare took cautiously all the above-said into consideration， he could have eliminated all connections to plague in his works. But why does he allow “plague” to remain somewhere， but not everywhere， in his plays？ What could be the effect on us of Shakespeare’s use or non-use of plague？ I will explain in the following essay how these questions will help us better understand the concept of tragedy and our moments of being.

Pericles and Oedipus the King: How and Why are They Different?

I would like to begin withPericles.Periclesis a romance， which begins with an act of incest.OedipustheKing（orOedipusRex） also describes a hauntingly frightful act of incest， and a plague arises because of Oedipus’s sin.

Susan Sontag comments in her book，IllnessasMetaphor， that “the speculations of the ancient world made disease most often an instrument of divine wrath.”4Susan Sontag, Illness as Metaphor (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1977), 39.She also writes about figurative meanings of epidemic diseases. “Epidemic diseases were a common figure for social disorder. From pestilence （bubonic plague） came ‘pestilent，’ whose figurative meaning，according to theOxfordEnglishDictionary， is ‘injurious to religion， morals， or public peace—1513’； and ‘pestilential，’ meaning ‘morally baneful or pernicious—1531.’ Feelings about evil are projected onto a disease. And the disease（so enriched with meanings） is projected onto the world.”5Ibid., 58.If in Shakespeare’s age， it was once a commonly held idea that epidemic diseases are related to pernicious and sinful morality， and that they materialize people’s feelings or fears about evil， then why in Shakespeare’sPericlesis incest mentioned as a moral evil but plague as divine wrath is absent？ What could be the effect on readers when Shakespearedoesnotrefer to plague inPericles？ How and why arePericlesandOedipustheKingdifferent from each other？

A quick answer： these two stories have different genres and focuses.OedipustheKingis a tragedy， and it focuses on the tension between a doomed fate and free will. Besides， Oedipus is at first completely ignorant of his own sin， and a final recognition of this moral sin helps him obtain a psychological insight， but causes him to lose his physical eyesight. This is a tragedy with inevitability and irretrievability interwoven painfully into its hidden logic.Periclesis different. It tells people how Pericles could regain free will and decide his own fate. There is also no lack of recognition of the sin. Pericles works out the riddle about the incest easily， and readers and audiences also know it from the very beginning through Gower.

Pericles is at first mesmerized by the incestuous daughter’s beauty， but when he solves the riddle， whose answer is incest， he at once senses the threat of death and gains a new-born life psychologically. The latter part of the story serves as a compensation for his previous loss of faith， love， and himself. If Antiochus and his daughter represent sin and evil， then Simonides and his daughter Thaisa represent love and mercy. Everything that follows Pericles’s painful and horrifying experience in Antioch is like a blessing and a miracle. He is miraculously shipwrecked on another land， Pentapolis， and meets Simonides and Thaisa， and virtuous Thaisa later becomes his wife. When everyone believes Thaisa dies on the sea voyage， she finally proves to be still alive and with her chastity well-protected. When the governor of Tarsus， Cleon， and his wife Dionyza attempt to murder Pericles’s daughter Marina， her life is miraculously saved.When Lysimachus， the governor of Mytilene， attempts to crack the glass of Marina’s virginity，he is miraculously impressed by her beautiful thoughts and chastity and later becomes her husband. When Pericles believes both his daughter and wife are dead and sinks into a profound grief， he is miraculously reunited with his daughter. Music plays a very moving and beautiful part in their recognition scene， and the later recognition scene with his wife. This is a romance， not a tragedy. Pericles got a second chance to demystify and even re-create his own fate.

In the tragedyOedipustheKing， the protagonistcommitsthe dreadful sin himself， while inPericles， the protagonistdiscoversthe dreadful sin. The revelation of the incest inOedipusthe Kingbrings a mental catastrophe to the protagonist， while the revelation inPericlesbrings a mental rebirth to the protagonist. Both Oedipus and Pericles have gained insights and learned something through solving the riddle of incest. Oedipus could no longer move on from this revelation. He is tragic and profound because he chooses to unlock， demystify and finally accept his fate. He is doomed in the genre and doomed by his own fate. For Pericles， things could still move on most promisingly. He is blessed with miraculous elements that maybe only a romance or a fairy tale could provide. His life is threatened because of a wise recognition of the sin， but his life is also later remade because of a rediscovery of love， faith， himself， and a reunion with both his daughter and wife.

Shakespeare does not need to write about， and readers and audiences may not really care about Antioch’s part—whether deities are enraged， whether there is a plague because of the rage.Pericles solves the riddle—everything begins to becertainand obtains a new meaning accordingly. Pericles’s spiritual growth could be seen as a marvellous adventure， both into the exterior world and interior landscape. Meanwhile， inOedipustheKing， a rampant plague mirrors the haunting atmosphere ofuncertaintyand ignorance. The protagonist’s recognition of the sin， and the revelation of the true cause for the plague could only point to a painful fact in tragic stories： what has been done cannot be undone. Oedipus has not been given， and could never have a second chance. Edith Hall elaborates her discussions on Oedipus’s personality，which she believes strengthens the tragic elements：

If Oedipus had not been a self-sufficient individual， confident in his ability to escape the dreadful destiny the Delphic oracle had revealed to him as a youth， he would never have left Corinth， the city in which he grew up， and the couple he believed to be his natural parents. If he had not been a proud and daring man， he would not have retaliated single-handedly against the travellers， including his real father Laius， who tried to push him off the road at the triple junction between Thebes and Delphi. He certainly would not have killed them. If he had not been a man of searching intellect and sense of civic responsibility， he could never have solved the riddle of the supernatural Sphinx and released Thebes from servitude， thus meriting election to kingship of the very city of his birth and marriage to its queen. It is the same public spirit and curiosity which drives Oedipus on to solve the new riddle—who killed king Laius？ —and thence to the discovery of the horrifying truth.6Edith Hall, introduction to Sophocles, Antigone, Oedipus the King and Electra (Oxford: OUP, 1994), xxi.

But it could never be otherwise—since Oedipusisself-sufficient， confident， proud， daring and responsible， the story is doomed to be a tragic one. Then how should we describe the effect of Shakespeare’s non-use of plague concerning the city of Antioch inPericles？ Readers will thus focus more on Pericles and his new-born life after the dreadful experiences in Antioch， and we value more about Pericles’s spiritual growth. Another fact worth noticing is that the historical Pericles did die of plague， but Shakespeare’s art omits that part and redefines his life with an inbuilt sense of hope， which is also indicated by his present for Thaisa， a withered branch， only green at the top. In the latter part of the play， when Pericles finally sinks into complete resignation， similar to what Arthur Schopenhauer describes as the denial of the will-to-live， he also finally arrives at a genuine understanding of this world， and can be a more qualified appreciator of his daughter Marina’s heavenly music in the recognition scene， when the sense of hope truly begins.

Romeo and Juliet: Could the Story Have a Different Ending if There is No Plague?

The previous part has discussed two genres， romance and tragedy， and how stories belonging to these two genres differ in focus and narrative even though they may share similar subplots or subthemes. Tragedy is firstly defined by a camouflaged uncertainty， which later turns out to be a certainty shared by all except the protagonist. Romance is firstly defined by a seeming certainty， which later proves to be an adventurous uncertainty serving as a new and exhilarating blessing for the protagonist. The plague inOedipustheKingis like a cleansing—a sweeping away of all moral sins and fatal errors. The non-use of plague for Antioch’s part in Pericles is like an emphasis—an emphasis on how the intermingling shaping forces of the protagonist’s spiritual growth and mental resignation could be preserved as the symbol of hope in a romance. Then what about Shakespeare’s tragedies？ What could be the effect of Shakespeare’suseof plague in his tragedies？ I will argue in this part that Shakespeare defines tragedy differently， say， from ancient Greek writers. He may refer to plague， but never uses it to strengthen his narrative. He focuses on a different causality. I will discussRomeoandJulietin particular.

Romeo does not receive the Friar’s letter in time because the Friar’s messenger is quarantined by a plague in northern Italy. He wrongly believes that Juliet is already dead， and he kills himself beside Juliet. Juliet does not wake up in time to avoid the tragedy. After she wakes up and sees Romeo’s dead body， she takes Romeo’s dagger and stabs herself. Maybe Romeo and Juliet die because of plague—or do they？ If the Friar’s letter had not been held up by quarantine measures， could the story have a different ending？ My answer is no. The tragic lovers are doomed by inevitability. Emma Smith pays special attention to the function of the Prologue in this play， which defines the star-crossed lovers’ doomed fate. She notes that the Prologue is missing in the First Folio Edition， and argues “without that pre-emptive， deterministic Prologue， without the openinghysteronproteron，7The English version of hysteron proteron is “putting the cart before the horse,” which suggests haste.without that perverse relaxation Anouilh attributed to tragic inevitability—it’s quite a different play.”8Emma Smith, This is Shakespeare (London: Pelican Books, 2019), 81.The Prologue stresses something that has already happened； as Smith argues， “the play is thus strongly teleological， heading inexorably to a conclusion that is already written.”9Ibid., 68.The Prologue in this play goes like this：

Two households， both alike in dignity

In fair Verona， where we lay our scene，

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny，

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes

A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life，

Whose misadventured piteous overthrows

Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife.

The fearful passage of their death-marked love

And the continuance of their parents’ rage -

Which but their children’s end， naught could remove -

Is now the two-hours’ traffic of our stage；

The which if you with patient ears attend，

What here shall miss， our toil shall strive to mend.

（Prologue 1-14）10See William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (New York: Bantam Classic, 2007).

The story could not turn out differently， because it is confined within its prologue， teleology，genre， hasty speed， and Shakespeare’s sources. Romeo and Juliet die partly because of the plague—it has a share in the structure and plot of this tragedy， yet they also do not truly die because of the plague. The deeper causality of this tragedy could only be internal， not external.

Romeo and Juliet fall in love with each other at first sight. Their fire of love burns most brightly， but everything happens so hastily. Their love reaches its climax too soon. However，their death is not as hasty. Romeo and Juliet do not die before they fully contemplate the concept of death. Romeo’s final soliloquy goes like this：

—Ah， dear Juliet，

Why art thou yet so fair？ Shall I believe

That unsubstantial Death is amorous，

And that the lean abhorred monster keeps

Thee here in dark to be his paramour？

For fear of that I still will stay with thee

And never from this palace of dim night

Depart again. Here， here will I remain

With worms that are thy chambermaids. Oh， here

Will I set up my everlasting rest

And shake the yoke of inauspicious stars

From this world-wearied flesh. Eyes， look your last！

Arms， take your last embrace！ And lips， O you

The doors of breath， seal with a righteous kiss

A dateless bargain to engrossing death！

（RomeoandJuliet5.3.101-115）11Ibid.

In Romeo’s melancholic soliloquy， he personifies death as a wooer of Juliet who is fascinated by her everlasting beauty. He believes when his mortal life draws to an end， their love will be immortal. He believes when he gets rid of his earthly flesh and existence， he can re-open the doors of breath and dive into a paradise of love. Juliet’s contemplative thoughts before she dies are shorter in length， but no less profound：

Go， get thee hence， for I will not away.

What’s here？ A cup， closed in my true love’s hand？

The girl had to ride for a great many days, and for a long and wearisome time, before she got there; but at last she did arrive, and then she asked the East Wind if he could tell her the way to the Prince who dwelt east of the sun and west of the moon

Poison， I see， hath been his timeless end.

O churl， drunk all， and left no friendly drop

To help me after？ I will kiss thy lips；

Haply some poison yet doth hang on them，

To make me die with a restorative.［Shekisseshim.］

Thy lips are warm.

（RomeoandJuliet5.3.160-67）12Ibid.

Juliet is more than willing to embrace death if this is the only way she can reunite with her beloved Romeo. For her， death is not an ending， but a blessing in disguise， a restorative.Shakespeare does not make his tragic characters die truly because of plague， which may be due to his unique definition of “tragedy”—interior factors matter more than exterior factors.

What Does King Lear’s Use of Plague as a Curse Tell Us?

The previous part has discussed how Romeo and Juliet’s tragic death could serve as a reconciliation and a connection. The star-crossed lovers’ death could only be related to， but not caused by plague. Only the profundity and unbearable sorrows of their tragic death could bring an eventual awakening to audiences and readers. Characters do not have a second chance within the story， but their deaths may serve as a second chance for people outside their story. This could be the creative definition of tragedy by Shakespeare—how the distinctiveness of each tragic story could miraculously connect people within and outside his narrative； it does not allow a second chance，but the tragedyitselfis a second chance. In this part， I will explore the effect of Shakespeare’s use of plague a bit further. I would like to discuss why plague is still frequent within Shakespeare’s language. Readers may notice that phrases related to plague have appeared many times in Shakespeare’s works， but no other work uses plague as a curse and a reprimand more violently or vulnerably thanKingLear. When Lear curses his daughter， he is more pained than furious.

Lear curses his daughter Regan and her husband Cornwell with “vengeance， plague， death and confusion” （KingLear2.4.88）13See William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Lear, ed. Jay L. Halio (Cambridge University Press, 2005).when they refuse to speak with him. Later when Lear is on the verge of madness， he also berates his daughter as a disease in his flesh： “Thou art a boil， / A plague sore， or embossed carbuncle / In my corrupted blood.” （KingLear2.4.216-8）14Ibid.Why does Shakespeare use the language of plague and disease in particular as a curse？ These words represent a king at his highest rage. No doubt he is extremely furious， but he is also excessively vulnerable， and furious only in a pained and regretful way. He calls Regan a disease， but a diseaseinhisflesh； he berates Regan as a plague sore， or embossed carbuncle， butinhisblood.When he blames and curses Regan， he also blames and curses himself. Maybe at this point he already realizes the terrible mistakes he has made： how he rashly and blindly divides his kingdom， how his pride and presumptuousness make him believe the illusion and vanity of words， and how he has driven away his most honest child Cordelia.

As Susan Sontag observes， “Shakespeare does many variations on a standard form of the metaphor， an infection in the ‘body politic’—making no distinction between a contagion， an infection， a sore， an abscess， an ulcer， and what we would call a tumor.”15Susan Sontag, Illness as Metaphor, 72.The effect of King Lear’s language of disease is that the audience may unconsciously relate the infection in the body politic to a malfunction of King Lear’s mental health. His rage leads to his madness. His madness leads to his vulnerability. His vulnerability leads to his final sympathetic understanding of this world and himself.

King Lear’s language of disease， madness， vulnerability and evolving sympathies contribute to his being-in-the-world， which is painfully defined by nothingness. In this play，concepts like “something，” “nothing” and “everything” all play a major part. Lear begins with a blank fantasy that “nothing will come of nothing，” and later in his fool’s eyes， he becomes “an O without a figure”—he himself becomes nothing. Edgar， the good son of Gloucester， also delivers a soliloquy about nothingness after he is cheated by his brother Edmund. He confronts nature and gets rid of civilized life while he is in the poorest shape. Marjorie Garber comments on “being” and “nothingness” inKingLearas “uncannily apt” after the emergence of existentialism in philosophy. She believes “the plays of Samuel Beckett—especiallyEndgameandWaitingfor Godot—seemed to rewriteKingLearin a new idiom， and critical books like Maynard Mack’s “KingLear”inOurTimeand Jan Kott’sShakespeareOurContemporarystressed the way the play voiced the despair and hope of a modern era.”16Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare After All, 649.Through the lens of “being” and “nothingness” depicted inKingLear， we may also reflect upon our own moments of being with something new and different： how we are going to make use of our philosophical investigations into the authenticity of nothingness， and then generate “something” out of “nothing” with a painful delight， to better define our ways of existence.

When Lear uses plague as a curse， he and we who read him both know perfectly that it does no actual harm to his daughter—his rage in fact reflects his sincere vulnerability. In my eyes， Lear’s language of curse is a mirror， through which he wishes， most cowardly， not to attack his daughter Regan， but to reflect better upon others and himself. He is still on the way towards a deeper comprehension about himself and others， and his madness finally helps him see things better. King Lear wishes desperately to know， to learn， and to judge， but he previously chose the wrong medium—words—and he pays a price. When Cordelia dies in his arms， he wants others to lend him a looking-glass， to see whether it will be stained with her breath of life. A. C. Bradley， an influential twentieth-century literary critic， believes Lear dies with an ecstatic belief that Cordelia is still alive. Lear’s heart （Cordelia’s name means “heart”） thus achieves a transcendence beyond life， death， nothing， and everything. Shakespeare creates a Lear who uses plague as a curse at his most vulnerable， fearful and furious moment. Plague， with its devouring appetite， could sweep away everything in Shakespeare’s contemporary England， but in Lear’s language， it only strengthens being and nothingness in a cowardly authentic way. We feel Lear’s extreme rage and deepest fears； we feel with him. We are exuberantly intrigued by Shakespeare’s language， which can help our mind and heart travel far； and we are safely protected by his imaginations， which can help us rethink our modes of being， ways of existence and interactions with the secular world.

Conclusion

George Eliot writes beautifully and melancholically in herMiddlemarchabout tragic elements in real life：

Some discouragement， some faintness of heart at the new real future which replaces the imaginary， is not unusual， and we do not expect people to be deeply moved by what is not unusual. That element of tragedy which lies in the very fact of frequency， has not yet wrought itself into the coarse emotion of mankind； and perhaps our frames could hardly bear much of it. If we had a keen vision and feeling of all ordinary human life， it would be like hearing the grass grow and the squirrel’s heart beat， and we should die of that roar which lies on the other side of silence. As it is， the quickest of us walk about well wadded with stupidity.17George Eliot, Middlemarch: An Authoritative Text, Backgrounds, Criticism, Second Edition (New York: W. W. Norton &Company, 2000), 124.

Maybe the fool inKingLearis among the quickest， who protects himself well and walks about with stupidity， which is in fact wisdom in disguise. Another unforgettable scene inKingLearis how blind Gloucester， led by his son Edgar， believes so firmly that he has jumped off Dover Cliff and then was miraculously saved. Marjorie Garber’s comments on the scene show an interconnection between Gloucester’s belief in the cliff and our own belief in the cliff： “Here a human being is seen through the wrong end of a telescope： tiny， puny， insignificant and futile， clinging to a cliff for survival and for sustenance. This essential tragicomic moment， a jump from nowhere to nowhere，from flat ground to flat ground， is rendered—instead of being slapstick—very close to sublime. In a sense the cliff is real， and it stretches below us all.”18Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare After All, 684.This might be the most profound effect of Shakespeare’s tragedy on us： to see， to feel， to imagine， and finally， to recognize how the insignificance of our role in nature could lead to the sublimity of individuality in art.

Susan Sontag writes her book，IllnessasMetaphor， with excessive sarcasm and apocalyptic pessimism. She argues that disease should detach itself from metaphorical meanings. In the concluding part of her book， she talks about cancer as a metaphor， and how the metaphorical meanings are going to be obsolete once cancer is de-mythicized； she also shows deep concerns for the future of humankind：

But at that time， perhaps nobody will want any longer to compare anything awful to cancer. Since the interest of the metaphor is precisely that it refers to a disease so overlaid with mystification， so charged with the fantasy of inescapable fatality. Since our views about cancer， and the metaphors we have imposed on it， are so much a vehicle for the large insufficiencies of this culture， for our shallow attitude toward death， for our anxieties about feeling， for our reckless improvident responses to our real “problems of growth，” for our inability to construct an advanced industrial society which properly regulates consumption， and for our justified fears of the increasingly violent course of history. The cancer metaphor will be made obsolete， I would predict， long before the problems it has reflected so persuasively will be resolved.19Susan Sontag, Illness as Metaphor, 87-8.

Maybe Shakespeare’s works， his tragedies in particular， could help ease Susan Sontag’s anxieties and concerns a bit. Shakespeare’s unique reference to death and plague reflects a simple profundity shared by all humankind. No character in his plays dies of plague， by which he aims to show the strength and distinctiveness of each individual. When plague is almost absent as a form of divine wrath in the city of Antioch inPericles， he aims at shifting our attention to the protagonist and preserving a second chance in art which a devouring epidemic would never allow.When star-crossed lovers die partly because of the plague， he makes their last words properly heard， and their tragic deathitselfis a second chance for people outside the story. When King Lear uses plague as a curse， this particular language represents Lear’s moment of rage and vulnerability， and it reveals to us the true nature of being and nothingness， and the sense of hope born from Lear’s resignation， even though the play itself could not evade a tragic ending.Shakespeare’s tragedies reveal fatalism within the narratives， and when these tragedies reach out to us， they serve as a reconciliation and an education outside the narratives.

In short， inPericles， Shakespeare’s non-use of plague in Antioch leads to a focus on Pericles’s spiritual growth， and we see how the resignation leads to the hope of reunion and love.InRomeoandJuliet， Shakespeare’s use of plague depicts an environment filled by good or evil luck， and Romeo and Juliet’s romantic death is also interwoven with the transcendence of their love， which leaves readers with the hope of a final reconciliation. King Lear’s use of plague in his language defines how unnameable fury and profound fear are combined， and how being and nothingness are intertwined， which leaves readers with the hope of a genuine recognition and understanding of our beings-in-the-world.